- (1.) This judgment will be read in continuation of a Division Bench judgment dated June 7, 1990, to which I was a party. After the judgment was rendered, the petitioners moved an application for review of the judgment on the ground that certain points which arise in individual writ petitions could not be urged earlier when the case was heard by the Division Bench. The review petition was allowed by the Division Bench and the writ petitions were referred to the Single Judge for disposal. It is in these circumstances that these writ petitions have been placed before me for dispose.
(2.) This order will deposed of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3185, 3214, 3215 of 1985 and 39 of 1987. The last writ petition has been file by the workman who was awarded compensation but was not allowed to bee reinstated in service. In the other three writ petitions, the only point raised is that the petitioner The Punjab State Khadi and Village Industrial Board (for short, the Board) is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). The Labour Court, after referring to the evidence produced on the record, came to the conclusion that the Board is an 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act.
(3.) The matter as not res integra. In Gopal v. Administrative Officer, Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Village Industrial Board and others, 1985 4 SCC 138, a question arose for consideration whether Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and their Lordships of the Supreme court held thus :- "On fact of the case the irresistible conclusion is that the Board engages itself in the business of selling blankets. It is therefore to be held that the Board is an industry within the meaning of the Act." In view of this authoritative pronouncement, it is not open to the petitioners to say that the Board is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.;