Irrigation Department Of State Not An ‘Industrial Establishment’ Under Section 25L Of ID Act
Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v Somdutt Sharma
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay Oka
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6093 OF 2021
Court Observation: “Even assuming that some of the employees may be doing the work of pumping of water, that is not sufficient to hold that Irrigation Department of the first appellant is carrying on manufacturing process. Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department will have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities. Few employees of the Irrigation Department out of several may be incidentally operating pumps. But the test is what are the predominant functions and activities of the said Department. Even if the activity of operation of pumps is carried on by few employees, the Irrigation department does not carry on manufacturing process. As it is not carrying on manufacturing process, it is not a factory within the meaning of clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the Irrigation Department of the first appellant will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L. Accordingly, Chapter VB will have no application in the present case,”
“The Labour Court as well the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court have not adverted to the question whether the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L. There is no finding recorded that the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is doing manufacturing activity as provided in sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act”
[doc id=10558]
Previous Posts
Retrospective Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From A Date When An Employee Is Not Even Borne In-Service: Supreme Court Download Judgement
