High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8220/2006dismissed

State Of Hry v. Parveen Kumar & ORS

2017-02-27Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina2 pages

CWP No.8220 of 2006 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.15233 of 2015 in/& CWP No.8220 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.02.2017 State of Haryana .... Petitioner versus Parveen Kumar & Ors.

.... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr.Saurav Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.P.Arora, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No.1.

*** Rajiv Narain Raina, J.(Oral) CM No.15234 of 2015 This is an application for an early hearing of the case. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the hearing of the case is brought forward to today i.e. 27.02.2017 and the main case is taken up for hearing today itself for final disposal. CWP No.8220 of 2006 The only issued raised in this petition against the award of the Labour Court, Karnal is that the Department of Excise and Taxation is not an industry by definition within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Mr. Arora appearing for the respondent-workman has placed along with his application a typed copy of the order passed by me in CWP No.596 of 2013, State of Haryana vs. Rajinder Parshad & ors. delivered on 18.09.2015 on which reliance is placed to refute the stand of the State by Sonia Bura 2017.03.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP No.8220 of 2006 (O&M) -2asserting that the department falls within the definition. While holding that the Department of Excise and Taxation, Haryana is an industry I had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur vs. Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675: 1960 SCR (2) 942 where the Apex Court considered similar activity of Excise and Taxation wing of the Corporation qualifies as industrial activity, declaring the same to be an industry. The reasoning therein applies here in this case. No other ground was pressed against the award. On merits the award does not suffer from legal infirmity or error apparent on the face of record warranting interference while acting under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 27.02.2017 sonia 1.Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes 2.Whether reportable?

No Sonia Bura 2017.03.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh