JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Hari Mohan Bhatnagar, was engaged on Muster Roll in the year 1962 in the Command Area Development, Chambal, Kota. He was declared semi permanent. Subsequently, he was retrenched in the year 1969. He was again engaged as a daily wage employee. He was once again declared semi permanent vide order dated, 20.9.82, of the Executive Engineer, Distributary Division, C.A.D. Chambal, Kota. He was given the grade of Rs. 295-500/- as Mistry (Semi Permanent) w.e.f. 1.1.79 in C.A.D. Department. Irrigation is one of the wings of C.A.D. The services of the employees of C.A.D. Department are regulated by the provisions of the various sets of rules including the Rajasthat P.W.D. (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short 1964 Rules). In accordance with the provisions of 1964 Rules, unit-wise seniority is maintained. The petitioner's name has been included at serial No. 61 in the seniority list of Mistris of Irrigation Wings. On 23.5.83 the Chief Accounts Officer C.A.D. Chambal,Kota, wrote a latter to the Superintendent Engineer, Canal Circle, C.A.D. Kota for retrenchment of Muster Roll/Work-charge employees numbering 1211. This was followed by an order dated, 29.5.83 issued by the Superintending Engineer, C.A.D. Irrigation Circle-I, Kota, which was published in Daily Rashtradoot, dated, 30.5.83. By this order, the services of number of employees including that of the petitioner was ordered to be terminated in the afternoon of 30.5.83 in accordance with the Rule 26 of 1964 Rules. The reason given in the order is that by Government order dated, 16.4.83, some divisions of the Irrigation Wing of C.A.D. have been abolished and therefore, the employees named in that order who belonged to C.A.D. Irrigation, Circle-I, had been declared surplus. The name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 13 in the category of Mistries. The order dated, 16.4.83 of the Government issued under the signatures of the Special Secretary, Agri. (C.A D.) Group-X Department, sanction of the Governor for abolition of the posts of various units of C.A.D. Chambal, was conveyed. Although, different categories of posts have been specified in that order, posts of Mistries do not find mention in the said order. This order dated, 16.4.83 has been placed on record as Annexure-4 with the reply filed by the respondents. Although, different categories of posts have been specified in that order, posts of Mistries do not find mention in the said order. This order dated, 16.4.83 has been placed on record as Annexure-4 with the reply filed by the respondents. The petitioner has produced before the Court a copy of office order dated, 20.4.83 issued by the Area Development Commissioner, C.A. Chambal, whereby the various offices of Irrigation Wing were merged with the order existing offices in C.A.D. Chambal. He has also placed reliance on a letter dated, 30th January 1984 issued by the Chairman and Administrator, Rajasthan Canal Bard for absorption of the employees who were retrenched from C.A.D. Chambal. In para-3 of the said-order dated, 30th January 1984, the Chairman and Administrator, Rajasthan Canal Board expressed opinion that it would be possible to absorb the staff of the category of Mates and Mistries. 2. While challenging the order of retrenchment the petitioner has asserted that the respondents have not followed the provisions of the rules of 1964, & also section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even the Government order dated, 16.4.83 has not properly been followed. That order. does not make any reference to the abolition of posts of Mistries and yet, in the garb of abolition of the posts, the petitioner has been declared surplus and retrenched from service. The respondents have contested the petition by asserting that the C.A.D. Department does not come within the scope of term 'industry' as used in section 2 (g) of 1947 Act The activities of the C.A D. relate to the development of Chambal Command Area for preventing water logging and for solving drainage problems and also to attain optimum utilisation of irrigation water. This activity falls within the ambit of regal & sovereign functions of the State. It has also been stated that the petitioner is not a workman for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The seniority lists are required to be prepared unit-wise. The petitioner has, in fact, not been retrenched, but, it is a case of closure of the establishment. The respondents have then asserted that in accordance with the Government order dated, 16.4.83, three irrigation Divisions, one Circle and the office of the Additional Chief Engineer, C A.D. Chambal, Kota, have been abolished. The regular staff has been adjusted against the existing vacancies or has been declared surplus. The respondents have then asserted that in accordance with the Government order dated, 16.4.83, three irrigation Divisions, one Circle and the office of the Additional Chief Engineer, C A.D. Chambal, Kota, have been abolished. The regular staff has been adjusted against the existing vacancies or has been declared surplus. However, the work-charge staff has been retrenched by compliance of Rule-26 of 1964 Rules. The notice of termination had been sent by post and salary of one month in lieu of notice was sent along with the termination order. The notices were also pasted on the notice Board. Rile-26 of 1964 Rules permit termination of service of work-charge employees by giving one month's notice. 3. The first question which requires consideration is as to whether the CAD. Chambal, Kota, can be treated as an 'industry' for the purpose of section 2 (j) of 1947 Act. In this context it is relevant to mention that the provisions of work-charge Rules have been made applicable entire C. A. D. Chambal, Kota. At the same time, vide notification No. F. 3(3) Shram/64/Jaipur, dated, Nil, issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Government (Labour Department), the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act have been invoked and the work of Chambal Project was declared public utility service for the curious of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This gives an indication that the Government itself has treated the C. A. D. Chambal as subject to the provisions of 1947 Act. That apart, admittedly, the work of the Chambal Command Area relates to solving the problem of water logging, drainage and attaining optimum utilisation of irrigation water. The question as to whether such a work of a Government Department falls within the scope of the term 'industry' has been examined by the Supreme Court in Deshraj v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1990 S.C. 1114 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reversing a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have held that the activity of Irrigation Department of the Government falls within the definition of the term 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being the position of law I need not enter into further discussion on the issue. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reversing a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have held that the activity of Irrigation Department of the Government falls within the definition of the term 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being the position of law I need not enter into further discussion on the issue. 4. On the merits of the controversy it is to be seen that vide order dated, 16-4-83 the sanction of the Governor for abolition of the post specified in that order was conveyed The post of Mistry has not been specified in that order. Therefore, the order dated, 16-4-83 did not result in abolition of the post of Mistries. Consequently, it was not open to the respondent to have treated the persons holding the post of Mistries as surplus to the requirement of the establishment. As a logical corollary there would have been no occasion for termination of the service of the petitioner and other 'Mistries vide order dated, 29-5-82. 5. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that the petitioner could be treated as surplus on account of the abolition of some divisions of Irrigation Wing of C. A. D. Chambal, Kota, in my opinion, it can not be treated as a case of closure of an undertaking, by mere abolition of some posts of irrigation wing of C. A. D. Chambal, Kota. 6. In A. S. Production Agencies (p) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 170 , the question which arose before the Supreme Court was, as to whether closure of a section of a factory can be treated as closure of the factory itself for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After making reference to the provisions of section 25FFF and other relevant provisions of the Act their Lord ships of the Supreme Court observed : "The expression "undertaking" is not defined in the Act. It also finds its place in the definition of the expression industry' in Section 2(j). While ascertaining the amplitude of the express on undertaking' in the definition of the expression industry', noscitur a socits cannon of construction was invoked and a restricted meaning was assigned to it in Bangalore Sewerage Board v. Rajappa, (1978) 3 S.C.R. 207 at P. 227 : AIR 1978 S.C. 548 . While ascertaining the amplitude of the express on undertaking' in the definition of the expression industry', noscitur a socits cannon of construction was invoked and a restricted meaning was assigned to it in Bangalore Sewerage Board v. Rajappa, (1978) 3 S.C.R. 207 at P. 227 : AIR 1978 S.C. 548 . While thus reading down the expression, in the context of S. 25FFF it must mean a separate and distinct business or commercial or trading or industrial activity. It cannot comprehend an infinitesimally small part of a manufacturing process." 7. Their Lordships further observed that an employer may stop a certain work which was a part of an undertaking, but, which could not be classified as an independent undertaking, the stoppage of work in this context would not amount to closure of the undertaking. On that promise the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Industrial Tribunal that closure of a section of the factory cannot be treated as a closure for the purpose of section 25 FFF of the 1947 Act. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted case is clearly attracted in the present case. Admittedly, there has been no. closure of the C. A. D., Chambal, Kota. Even the irrigation Wing as whole has not been closed; only in a small part of it some posts were abolished. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a closure of an undertaking as contemplated by section 25FFF of the 1947 Act. 8. Now, comes the question as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment for the purpose of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term retrenchment' as used in section 2 (o)) has been given a very wide meaning. It includes within its scope termination of service for whatsoever reason. The only exception is in the case of termination of service by way of punishment or on account of superannuation or medical unfitness. All other types of terminations are comprehended within the meaning of the term 'retrenchment' under section 2 (oo). The wide meaning given to the definition of the term retrenchment in State Bank of India v. N. Sundramoni, AIR 1976 S.C. 111 , has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer (1980 (3) S. C. C. 682). The wide meaning given to the definition of the term retrenchment in State Bank of India v. N. Sundramoni, AIR 1976 S.C. 111 , has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer (1980 (3) S. C. C. 682). In the latest case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in Hari Prasad Shiv Shankar Shukla does not contain a proposition on the basis of which it could be said that Sundramoni's case (supra) was wrongly decided and Hari prasad's case is not an authority for the purpose of section 2(00) which only covers case of discharge, of surplus labour and staff. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it is to be held that termination of the service of the petitioner by order dated, 25-9-83 amounts to retrenchment under section 2(oo) of 1947 Act. It is clear from the un-controverted facts which have come on record that the petitioner was neither paid nor offered the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25F (b) of 1947 Act. Therefore, one of the two conditions precedent which are required to be satisfied for a valid retrenchment, has not been fulfilled by the respondents while bringing about termination of the service of the petitioner w. e. f. 30-5-83. The mere fact that one month's notice as required by Rule-26 of 1964 Rules, had been given, in my opinion, is not sufficient for effecting a valid retrenchment. Section 25F falls under Chapter-VA of 1947 Act and by virtue of section 25J, the provisions of Chapter-VA have been given over-riding effect. These provisions are required to be complied with not with standing any thing to the contrary contained in any law. Rules of 1964 have been enacted under proviso 309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, mere compliance of such rules cannot be treated as sufficient for bringing about a valid retrenchment unless these twin requirements of section 25F are fulfilled. 9. In view of the above finding. I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. 9. In view of the above finding. I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The termination of the service of the petitioner vide order dated, 29-5-83 is declared illegal and void. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefit except back wages. For back wages, the petitioner shall be free to apply under section 33 (c) (2) of 1947 Act'. In such proceedings, the respondents shall be entitled to raise a plea that the petitioner was in gainful employment. 11. Parties shall bear their own costs.Writ petition allowed. *******