D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a very short but interesting question, namely, whether the Public Works Department (P.W. D.) in its department relating to construction of road is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947, and thereby whether the petitioner is a workman entitled to settle the dispute with his employer through the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was a temporary employee for a short period but had completed 140 days of work within a period of 12 months and that his services were terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court refused to entertain the dispute on the ground that P.W.D. under which the petitioner was employed was not an industry within the meaning of the ratio decided in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, (1978-I-LLJ-349) (SC). It is this Award dated April 1, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, U.P. Agra, in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1988 (Annexure 5) which has been challenged by means of this petition.
(3.) The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the finding in the Award. It is the petitioner who has challenged the Award which operates against him.;