D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.3 being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3117 of 1996(R) dated 15th September, 2004 whereby, the petition preferred by the respondents being C.W.J.C. No. 3117 of 1996(R) has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh in Reference Case No.4 of 1989 dated 29th December, 1995 has been quashed and set aside and therefore, the original respondent no.3 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix It appears from the facts of the case that one of the Organizations of the Government viz. Rural Engineering Organization, Giridih had engaged this appellant (original respondent no. 3 in the writ petition) as a daily rated worker or casual worker. This appointment was given without any public advertisement, without following the rules of recruitment for the public post, without any test and without any interview. Thus, it was a back door entry. For intermittent periods from 1st December, 1980 to 31st May, 1984 for some period she was given the work. The said period for which this appellant has worked are as under: (a) 01.12.1980 to 31.01.1982 , as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. (62 days) (b) 01.12.1982 to 31st March, 1983. (121 days) (c) 01.04.1984 to 31st May, 1984. (61 days) thereafter, the work was never given by the respondents to this appellant. Industrial dispute was raised by this appellant under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was made to the Labour Court, Hazaribagh in the following terms. "Whether the termination of the services of Smt. Chandrawati Devi, Office Peon, Rural Engineering Organization is proper? If not is she entitled to reinstatement and to get any kind of relief?" Reference Case No. 4 of 1989 was instituted in the Labour Court, Hazaribagh and on the basis of the evidences given by the Management and this appellant Reference was decided and the award was passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh on 29th December, 1995 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) whereby, the order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh and for some periods the wages have been awarded. The aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh was challenged by the respondent Management in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3117 of 1996(R) before this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15th September, 2004. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid decision rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition preferred by the Management whereby, the award, passed by the learned Labour Court, Hazaribagh was quashed and set aside in Reference Case No. 4 of 1989. Hence, original respondent no.3 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant (original respondent no.3 in the writ petition): Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant has worked for more than 240 days and her services have been terminated without giving any notice and hence, there is violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh, for grant of order of reinstatement with certain wages for certain periods. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the Government Departments are not sovereign functions of the Government. If the economic activities of the Government is going on in few of the departments and if such departments are fulfilling the test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213 the said department can be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent Management. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [1997(2) PLJR 38(SC)] is a per incuriam judgment looking to para no. 143 of the decision rendered by seven Judges' Bench reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213. Counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 8 SCC 767 and submitted that the Telecom Department of Government is an Industry. There is no difference between Rural Engineering Organization at Giridih and such type of departments are not the sovereign functions of the Government and hence, the learned Single Judge has arrived at wrong conclusion that Rural Engineering Organization at Giridih is not an Industry. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as this appellant has completed more than 240 days working and without any notice and without any compensation the services of this appellant has been brought to an end. Such termination has been rightly held as illegal termination and therefore, order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh in the award dated 29th December, 1995 in Reference Case no.4 of 1989 may be held as valid one by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3117 of 1996(R) dated 15th September, 2004 and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. ;