JUDGMENT S.D. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the State Government dated 18th May, 1982 by which the State Government refused to make a reference of the dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The petitioner, admittedly, joined the U.P. Government Roadways as an employee of the State Government. The U.P. Government Roadways carried on road transport business. By a notification dated 31st 1972, the State Government issued a notification constituting U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) with effect from June 1, 1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The Corporation took over the U.P. Government Roadways and started carrying on the work of transport business. 3. By another order dated June, 7, 1972, the State Government directed that the service of all the employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways Organisation permanent of temporary shall be on deputation with the Corporation. It was further directed that the officers and the employees while on deputation will be entitled to the same salary and allowance which they would have received in Government Service. 4. Since with effect from 1st June, 1972, the Corporation was established, the petitioner also was sent deputation to the Corporation. While the petitioner was on deputation with the Corporation, his services were terminated by an order dated 24th July, 1976 by the Corporation. The petitioner, consequently, challenged the order of his termination initially before the superior authorities but when he got no relief, he made an application to the Regional Conciliation Officer praying that conciliation proceedings may be started. In the conciliation proceedings also, no settlement took place and, therefore, the petitioner, applied to the State Government under Section 4 - K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under Section 10(1)(e) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 asking the State Government to refer the dispute to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The State Government by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1982 informed the petitioner that it has considered the case and that in its opinion, it was not a fit case for adjudication as the petitioner could file a petition challenging the termination order before the Public Services Tribunal. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present petition. 5. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present petition. 5. We have heard Sri K.P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.K. Sharma for the Corporation. 6. The only argument raised by Sri K.P. Agrawal is that the order dated 13th May, 1982 is vitiated in law as it is based on the ground that the petitioner could file a reference before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. This remedy, according to the petitioner, is not available to him and as such, since the order of the State Government is based an irrelevant consideration, the same is liable to be set aside, and the State Government should consider the application moved by the petitioner under Section 4 - K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the proper perspective. 7. Section 1 sub - section (4) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 enumerates the classes of public servants to whom the Act would not apply. One of the class mentioned in clause (e) is 'workmen' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. In view of this provision, if a public servant is a workman under either the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 then he is not entitled to make a petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The only question, therefore, which has to be considered in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not. 9. Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation has urged that the question whether the petitioner is a workman or not has already been finally concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 1980 Alld. Law Reports, page 81. 10. Sri K.P. Agrawal, on the other hand has urged that the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta (supra) relied upon by the respondent Corporation has not been correctly decided and that the case requires reconsideration. 11. Before we consider the effect of the decision in J.P.Gupta's case, it is necessary to mention that Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that his claim is against the State Government only. 11. Before we consider the effect of the decision in J.P.Gupta's case, it is necessary to mention that Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that his claim is against the State Government only. We have, therefore, to consider the case in the light of the statement made by Sri K.P. Agrawal that the petitioner intends to file a claim only against the State Government. 12. In the case of J.P.Gupta (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had taken the view that the employees who were in service of the State Government continued to be in the service of the State Government although they were on deputation with the Corporation. It was further held that there was no privity of contract of service between the employees on deputation and the Corporation and, as such, the relationship of master and servant did not exist between the parties. It was on the basis of these two findings that it was further held in that case that the employees on deputation did not fall within the category of workman as defined in the two Industrial Disputes Act and as such, they do not come within the excepted category of public servants as enumerated in Section 1(4) of the U.P. Public Service Tribunals Act, 1976. 13. The expression 'workman' has been defined in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. The expression 'workman' has been defined in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is as follows: - "Workman means any person (including and apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or rewards, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissed discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person: - (i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, or (ii) who is employed mainly in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." The definition of the expression 'workman' is in similar terms under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 14. From the above, it is clear that public servant could come within the definition of 'workman' only if he is employed in an industry and there exists relationship of a master and servant between the parties. Since, the Bench in J.P. Gupta's case (supra) came to the conclusion that there did not exist any relationship of master and servant between the parties, as the employees of the State Government continued to be the employees of the State Government, even after deputation with the Corporation, in our opinion, it was rightly held that such employees would not be workman . Consequently, it cannot be said that the decision is not correct and that case requires reconsideration. It cannot also be said that this decision concludes the matter. The question involved in the instant case is entirely different. Here the claim sought to be made is against the Government and not against the Corporation. 15. Consequently, it cannot be said that the decision is not correct and that case requires reconsideration. It cannot also be said that this decision concludes the matter. The question involved in the instant case is entirely different. Here the claim sought to be made is against the Government and not against the Corporation. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that his claim is not against the Corporation but against the State Government. If the claim is against the State Government, then in accordance with the decision of J.P. Gupta's case (supra), clearly a relationship of master and servant would exist between the Government and the employees on deputation, in our opinion, therefore, such an employee would come under the definition of the expression 'workman' as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as well as under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided the U.P. Government Roadways is held to be an 'Industry' as used in the definitions of the word 'workman' under both the Acts. 16. The expression 'Industry' has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. The leading case, in this connection, is the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 . In this case, it has been held that the word 'Industry' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has a wide import: "(a) where (1) systematic activity, (ii) organised by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is enimerical (iii) for the production and/or distribution or goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making, on a large scale prasad or food) prima facie, there is an industry in that enterprise. (b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector. (c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasise on the employer - employee relations. (d) If the Organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthrophy animating die undertaking." 17. It is not disputed that the Government Roadways carried on the business of transporting passengers in a systematic organised manner. (d) If the Organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthrophy animating die undertaking." 17. It is not disputed that the Government Roadways carried on the business of transporting passengers in a systematic organised manner. Its activity falls within the ambit of transport business as it is engaged in commercial activity. It makes no difference whether the business is carried on by the Government by the Corporation. On the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are clearly of the opinion that the U.P. Government Roadways carrying on transport business by the Stale Government, would be an 'industry within the definition of the expression industry both under Central as well as the State Industrial Disputes Acts. Since the U.P. Government Roadways is an industry and the petitioner was an employee of the State Government, though on deputation to the Corporation, he could clearly come under the expression 'Workman' used both under the Central and State Industrial Disputes Act and as such, he is entitled to seek adjudication under the Central as well as the State Act. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn but attention to certain observations made by Hon'ble K.N. Goel, J. as he then was, in the case of U.P. Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P., 1981 AWC 481 . He has relief on the following observations: - "As regards his contention No. (8) and contentions No. (a) and (c) of Sri Mannan, it is to be noted that both parties agree that the employees in question are workman and that the Roadways, like the Corporation, was also an industry. We are also of the same view and are unable to subscribe to the view expressed in J.P.Gupta (supra) that these employees were not workmen. The only reasons given by the Division Bench in that case of this finding was that the employees were still in Government service . The fact that the erstwhile Roadways was also art industry was not alluded to at all. Even a Government servant can be a workman if the undertaking in which he is engaged constitutes an industry, as in the case of a railway servant. The fact that the erstwhile Roadways was also art industry was not alluded to at all. Even a Government servant can be a workman if the undertaking in which he is engaged constitutes an industry, as in the case of a railway servant. Thus, the view expressed by the Division Bench in J.P. Gupta (supra) that because the employees were Government servants, therefore, they were not workmen was with due respect, non sequitur." The judgment of Hon'ble K.N. Goel, J. was a minority judgment. In the majority opinion delivered by Hon'ble T.S. Misra, J. as he then was, the question as to whether J.P.Gupta's case (supra) was rightly decided or not was not considered. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Full Bench decision has overruled J.P. Gupta's case. We agree with Hon'ble Goel, J. to the extent that he has held that the U.P. Government Roadways was also an industry, but we do not agree with the view that J.P. Gupta's case(supra) was wrongly decided. In fact, in the case of J.P. Gupta, (supra), the Bench had not gone into the question as to what would be position in case where an employee seeks a claim only against the State Government, who admittedly, is the employer of an employee on deputation. In the case of J.P. Gupta (supra), the claim was against the Corporation and having held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Corporation and employee on deputation, it was held that such an employee cannot come within the definition of workman. In our opinion, consequently, we agree with the view taken in J.P. Gupta's case (supra), but as expressed above, we are further of the opinion that in the case of an employee on deputation, if he has a claim only against the Government, then he would come under the definition of 'workman' both under the Central as well as the State Industrial Disputes Act and as such, he is entitled to seek an adjudication under these Acts. 19. The State Government in the impugned order dated 13th May, 1982 has stated that the petitioner can file his claim before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. This observation of the State Government, in our view, is manifestly erroneous. 19. The State Government in the impugned order dated 13th May, 1982 has stated that the petitioner can file his claim before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. This observation of the State Government, in our view, is manifestly erroneous. Since the petitioner is a 'workman' and he is seeking a claim against the Government, then he would come clearly under Section 1(4)(e) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 and as such, he cannot file a claim before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. 20. In view of the above, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is well-founded. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 13th May, 1982 rejecting the application moved by the petitioner seeking a reference under Section 4 - K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, or under Section 10 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the State Government for consideration of the application moved by the petitioner for a reference in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.