S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails order Ex. 10 dated October JO, 1981 by which the respondent No 2 viz. The Child Development Project Officer, Wair terminated his services.
(2.) MATERIAL facts may be noticed in brief. The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar vide order Ex 1 dated 26. 8. 1986 by respondent No. 2 viz. the Child Development Project Officer, Women Child and Nutrition Department on daily wages for a period of three months. He joined the duty on that very day, and continued to work. The term of his service was extended from time to time by-orders' Ex. 2 to Ex. 9. He continued to work under these orders. His services were terminated by the impugned order Ex. 10 dated 10-10-1988 w. e. f. 12. 10. 1988. The petitioner challenges the termination of his service on the grounds that the Department of Women Child and Nutrition, is an industry and he was a workman therein. The termination of his service amounts to retrenchment as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). The retrenchment was made without following the mandates of S. 25-F of the Act. No notice of requisite period was given to him nor wages in lieu of the period of notice nor compensation were paid or offered or tendered to him. The retrenchment is thus bad and illegal It is prayed that the petitioner should be forthwith reinstated with back wages, The petition, was opposed by the respondents. In the return filed by them, it was admitted that the petitioner worked as Chowkidar from 26. 8. 1986 to 11. 10. 1988 and thus worked for more than 240 days. It was also admitted that the provisions of S. 25-F of the Act were not complied with. The defence in that the Women Child and Nutrition Department is not an industry. Even if it is taken to be an industry, - the petitioner is governed by the Rajasthan service Rules (R. S. R. ). As such he cannot taken to be a workman as defined is the Act. The provisions of the Act were therefore, not attracted and hence should not be applied. The facts that the petitioner bad actually worked under respondent No. 2 for a period of more than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date 10. 10. 1988 on which his services were terminated by order Ex. 10 and that the provisions of S. 25-F of the Act were not complied with are not in dispute. These facts, therefore, should not be touched. The questions which arise for deliberation and decision are :- - 1. Whether the Department of Women, Child and Nutrition should or should not be taken to be an industry as defined in the Act ? and 2. If the said department is an industry, whether the petitioner was a workman therein ? We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate at length.
(3.) WE shall take the firs? question to start with. Learned counsel for both the parties made available to us the entire literature relating with the activities, functions, achievements etc. of the Department of Women, Child and Nutrition, Govt. of Rajasthan published by this department itself. WE have carefully gone through the literature and we have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that the department of Women, Child and Nutrition is an industry. The activities of the department as mentioned in the pamphlets 'women Power : Struggle and Success' issued by the department includes the economic programmes such as loan facilities to urban, women for setting up industries, setting up small or cottage industries and providing loons for them such as loan for domesticating buffaloes and loan for looms for weaving cloth etc. The activities also include the steps to be taken to improve the nutritional and health status of children below the age of six years, to lay the foundation for the social development of the child, to reduce the incidence of mortality, morbidity. malnutrition and school drop out etc. as mentioned in the Manual on Integrated Child Development Services issued by the National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development, New Delhi. The activities and functions of the Women, Child and Nutrition department are for the amelioration of the child and women by providing all possible help to them including that of seeking or providing employment to the women. All these activities and functions in our opinion are sufficient to make the department of Women, Child and Nutrition an industry as defined in the Act. No doubt the department of Women, Child and Nutrition is a Government department But on that account only, it does not cease to be an industry. The functions of the State today are not confined only to what are generally known as sovereign or regal or government functions such as enactment of laws, administration of law and justice, maintaining law and order etc. The functions of State today include not only the aforesaid activities but also welfare activities such as irrigation, education, medical, transport etc. In the well known case of Banglore Water Supply (!) as to what is an industry was dealt with at length' It was observed : - "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 functions if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable then they can be considered to come within Section 2 (j ). Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby". The above observations were reiterated and affirmed later on by the Supreme Court in the Des Raj's case (2 ). Thus sovereign functions alone qualify for exemption from the comprehensive definition, of industry given in the Act. Only the regal and sovereign activities are outside the scope of Sec. 2 (J) of the Act. ;