JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Peon in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Anand Nagar, Gorakhpur, here-in-after referred to as 'Mandi Samiti' on February 1, 1972. He continued to work in this capacity for some time. However with effect from October 1, 1973 he was appointed as Kamgar. On February 21, 1976, however, his services were terminated, aggrieved by which he raised an industrial dispute. State of Uttar Pradesh by order dated November 13, 1982, referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as Act, to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. However, subsequently this dispute was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal (II) U.P. at Lucknow vide Government Order dated February 16, 1985 where the dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1985. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements and adduced oral and documentary evidence. Industrial Tribunal gave its award dated November 29, 1985 in favour of respondent No. 2. The Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner Mandi Samiti is an Industry and respondent No. 2 worked for more than 240 days. However, he was retrenched from service without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, hence the termination was illegal and he was found entitled for reinstatement in servfce with effect from February 22, 1970 with full back wages and all consequential benefits and the continuity of service, pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri. B.D. Mandhyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had made the following submissions against the impugned award:
(1) That Mandi Samiti is not an industry and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged dispute and the award cannot be sustained.
(2) Respondent No. 2 is a public servant as declared under Section 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' and the remedy for him was before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and the dispute cannot be referred for adjudication to the Tribunal.
(3) The appointment order under which respondent No. 2 was appointed contained a condition that his services may be terminated at any time by one month's notice and as the termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the appointment order and the respondent No. 2 was paid one month's salary, the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act cannot be applicable.
(4) That Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam under which respondent No. 2 was appointed, will prevail over Section 6-N of the Act.
3. It is submitted that the impugned award cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases :
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. (1978-I-LLJ-
349) (SC), M. Venugopal v. The Divisional Managr Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(1994-I-LLJ-597)(SC),Rajendra Kumar Jain v.
Inspector General of Registration U. P. and Ors. 1995 (70) FLR 847, Kamlesh Kumar v.
State of U.P. and Ors. 1991 (18) ALR 299, Banarasi Das v. Labour Court, Ambala and Ors. 1994 (69)FLR 1019, Basant Lal v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors.
1992 SCD .475 and Sub-Division Inspector of Post Vaikam and Ors. etc. v. Theyyam Joseph etc. (1996-II-LLJ-230) (SC).
5. Sri. H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is engaged in multifarious activities under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The activities are systematic and organised and they are carried out with the help of the labour employed achieving the objects set under the Act. The scrutiny of the activities envisaged therein leaves no doubt that the peti-tioner is an industry. It has also been submitted' that this question has already been settled by the judgments of this Court and no more res-inte-gra. It has also been submitted that the Adhiniyam of 1964 is a general law. It has also been submitted that the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act cannot prevail over the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which is a special law in matters of industrial disputes. Learned counsel has submitted that the award is concluded by findings of fact that respondent No. 2 worked for more than 240 days and while terminating him from service which in law amounts to retrenchment, mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the Act were not complied with, the award has rightly been given in favour of respondent No. 2, which does not suffer from any error of law. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is an industry, a person employed therein shall be a workman even though he may be a public servant and the industrial dispute has rightly been adjudicated by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance in cases of L. Robert D 'Souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another (1982-I-LLJ-330)(SC); Basant v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. (supra); Gammon India Limited v. Niranjan Doss (1984-I-LLJ-233) (SC); Brij Kishore Shukla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1986 UPLBEC 1233 and The State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money (1976-I-LLJ-478)(SC)
7. I have thoroughly considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned award.
8. The first question as to whether petitioner is industry or not was raised before the Tribunal also. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner is industry.
Reliance has been placed in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively taken me through the provisions of the Act and the Rules and has submitted that, the object of the Act is only to regulate the commercial activities of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in order to prevent the exploitation of the producer by exclusion of middle men. Such activities cannot be termed to be an industry and the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner is an industry as it undertakes systematic activity with the help of organised labour force and the conditions laid down for determining the industry in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's (supra) case are fully satisfied and the award does not suffer from any error of law. The preamble of the Act reads as under:
"An Act to provide for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefor in Uttar Pradesh."
The aforesaid preamble thus clearly provides for systematic activity, for regulating sale and purchase of agricultural produce, petitioner establishes market yards and employs labour force for such establishment, superintendence and control of the same. There is separate department for various activities like Administration, Engineering etc. Such systematic and organised activity with the help of the labour force can be safely held to be an industry. Further this question has already been settled earlier by this Court by a Division Bench in the case of Brij Kishpre Shukla and Ors. (supra). A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench will show that the Division bench noticed identical view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Basant Lal v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. (supra) considered this question in detail and ultimately held that Mandi Samiti is an industry . It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph No. 9 of the judgment which runs as under:
"According to Section 26-1 of U.P. Krishi Utapadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 has been vested with a power to execute all works chargeable to the Board's fund, to maintain accounts, to make necessary arrangement for propaganda and publicity on matters re-: lating to regulate marketing of agricultural produce, to provide facilities for the training of officers and servants of the Market Committees etc. If the wide amplitude of the definition of word 'Industry' as enshrined -in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is considered in the light of the aforesaid duties and functions there can be no doubt that the U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad comes within the definition of the word 'in-dustry'. Undoubtedly there is relationship between employer and the employee. The said Parishad comes within the meaning of calling occurring in the definition of word 'industry' because this is a calling of employer and includes any calling, service, employment etc. Hence it can safely be said that Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of word 'industry' as defined under Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act."
I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by mis Court through Division Bench and learned Single Judge and I do not find any good ground to reopen the issue. Thus the petitioner is an industry and the view taken by the Tribunal is justified and does not suffer from any error of law.
9. The second question argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is public servant as defined in Section 26 of the Adhiniyam and service dispute can only be resolved by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and not by the Industrial Tribunal. The submission of the learned counsel has no substance. Under Section 26 of the Adhiniyam every officer or servant of the Board or a Committee shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus by legal fiction officer or servant or the petitioner has been conferred status of public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code. The object is limited to provide identical protection available to the officer and employee of the Board or Committee also, for which normally public servants are entitled, but on basis of the protection provided by a legal fiction it cannot be said that the officers and servants who are working in an industry will not be workmen. For that matter even the public servants if serving in an industry can be a workman. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner thus deserves to be rejected.
10. The third and fourth submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be considered together. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the appointment of respondent No. 2 was under Section 23 of the Adhiniyam, service condition will be governed by the provisions of Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam and if he has been terminated from service in accordance with those rules, there is no illegality and the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act will not be applicable. The reliance for this purpose has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and Ors., v. Theyyam Joseph (surpa). However the contention does not appear to be correct. A perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court relied on will show that the Postal and Telecommunication Department has not been held to be an industry and therefore, it was held that the extra departmental employees in Postal Department are also civil servants and not workmen and thus the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act shall be applicable. Sections 23 and 23-A of the Adhiniyam are enabling provisions and under provisions centralised service may be constituted by the Board. However there is nothing on which basis it may be said that the respondent No. 2 cannot be treated to be a workman and the dispute raised by him cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal. In this connection it was also submitted that as the appointment order contained condition that services of respondent No. 2 can be terminated at any time by serving a notice and by paying one month's salary, the termination is governed by Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not correct. Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been inserted with effect from August 18, 1984, whereas the termination of respondent No. 2 from service took place much before that. This clause will not be applicable. Thus both the submissions made have no substance and are hereby rejected. No other point has been raised. From this discussion made above, it is clear that the impugned award given by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law and this writ petition has no merit.
11. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.