ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) IN both these writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) IN both these writ petitions the award given by the Industrial Tribunal dated 20th August, 1983 has been challenged. That the non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 18 in writ petition No. 2579 of 1983 and non -petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition 2668 of 1983 are employees of the Municipal Board, Bilara, petitioner here in. They moved an application Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1947) before the Labour Court claiming the wages for overtime from 1 -12 -74 to 5 -2 -1978. The total amount claimed on account of over time came to Rs. 1,75,296.33/ -.The non -petitioners were employed by the Municipal Board Bilara in connection with collecting Octroi which is the tax levied under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. A claim petition was registered before the Labour Court and the Labour Court issued a notice thereof. A reply was filed and the claim was congested. Various objections were raised, namely that since the non -petitioners who were working on the post Nakedra and Mohrir working on Octroi check post are discharging the sovereign and inalienable function of collecting tax, therefore they do not fall in the definition of industry and this section of Municipality is not an industry and as such the application is not maintainable. Secondly it was objected that under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 the claim is not entertainable. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties overruled both the objections and held that the Municipality is an industry and that the application under Section 33C(2) is maintainable for overtime wages as such the Labour Court appointed a Commissioner under Section 33C(3) read with Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 to make a proper enquiry and submit his report how much each person is entitled to over time wages. Aggrieved against this order the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, challenging the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) MR . Balia, appearing for the petitioner submits that since the collection of Octroi is a sovereign function, therefore this part of section of the Municipality does not fall within the defintion of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and as such the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application. I am afraid this contention is wholly devoid of force in view of the categorical judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. : (1978)ILLJ349SC , wherein it has been clearly laid down that the Municipality is an industry under Section 2(j) and dichotomy suggested by Mr. Balia that the collection of octroi should be treated as sovereign function so as to take out from the purview of the definition of industry is unwarranted. Their Lordships have clearly laid down that: Not with standing the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone qualify for exemption not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by government or statutory bodies'. 'Even in departments discharging sovereign function, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j). ;