- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to orders dated 16.4.2004 and 9.7.2004, Annexures P-1 and 3 respectively, whereby the appropriate government declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner-workman to the Labour Court.
(2.) In the petition, it has been averred by the petitioner that on 1.1.1991 he was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar by respondent No. 3 on daily wages. He served as such till 20.2.2004 when his services were terminated illegally by respondent-department. Petitioner-workman challenged the order terminating his services by filing demand notice before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Sirsa. Respondent No. 1 vide order, Annexure P-1, rejected the reference of petitioner-workman on the ground that the department is performing the sovereign function of the State. Petitioner-workman challenged the said order by way of an appeal but that too came to be dismissed vide order, Annexure P-3. It is these orders which are under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) Upon notice of the writ petition, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3 controverting the pleas so raised by the petitioner-workman. It has been pleaded that neither the respondent department, namely, Excise and Taxation Department, falls within the definition of 'industry' nor the petitioner is a 'workman'.;