Jai Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) Shri Surinder Singh was a workman employed with the Public Health Department, Division No. 2, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) as Assistant Pump Driver since 27th April, 1981, on daily wages of Rs. 15/- per day. His services were terminated on 23rd March, 1983 by the present petitioner due to his misconduct in teasing the girls while on duty, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri Balwinder Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer. Feeling aggrieved against the termination of his services, the workman approached the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, who referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudication by the Labour Court. The employer contested third dispute in the Labour Court, Patiala, on the ground that the workman being employed in the Public Health Department of the Punjab Government, which, according to the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Parkash v. M/s Executive Engineer, S.Y.L. Kurukshetra and others, 1984 CLJ 349 , is not an industry and the provisions of the Act are not attracted. It was also maintained that the workman being engaged on daily wages, his services could be terminated without holding any enquiry or giving any notice. It was also maintained that the services of the workman were terminated on the basis of the complaint, dated 22nd February, 1983, made by Shri Vijay Kumar and after holding of due enquiry.
(2.) The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Patiala, vide his impugned award, dated 8th November, 1985 (Annexure P-l) set aside the order of termination of the services of the workman with a direction that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the employer has filed this writ petition in this Court.
(3.) In view of the decision of the final Court in Des Raj etc. v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1182 , the Public Health Department of the Government clearly comes within the ambit of term "Industry" occurring in Section 2(J) of the Act. Mr. Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, rightly conceded that the legal attack regarding the lack of jurisdiction by the Labour Court to try this dispute is not available to the employer-petitioner. The learned counsel then tried to make out a case of remand on the ground that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to justify the termination of the services of respondent No. 1 and resisted the case on the legal ground only that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the Public Health Department was not an industry. I fail to agree with him, as on the perusal of the written statement filed by the employer before the Labour Court, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-2 to this petition, clearly shows that it has also resisted the case of the workman on merits also. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court had framed an issue on the merits of the case to the effect, whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that no opportunity was granted to the employer to lead evidence by the Labour Court. The services of the workman were terminated on 23rd March, 1983 and since then he is facing the hazards of being jobless and pursuing the legal proceedings before different forums. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for accepting this writ petition and remanding the case for affording an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence. It may further be remarked that it is not even the case of the employer in the written statement that the workman was charge-sheeted and a regular enquiry was conducted by the concerned Executive Engineer before terminating his services.;