Judgment 1. The Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Government of Bihar, Patna is the petitioner in this writ application. He challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed on a reference in respect of services of respondent No. 1-Lal Babu Rai in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The parties have appeared and have been heard and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. Respondent No. 1-Lal Babu Rai was working as a daily wager in the Punpun Flood Protection Division. His services were terminated. Being aggrieved, he approached the State Government for referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal alleging that as he had worked continuously for a period of over 240 days and his dismissal being contrary to the requirements as prescribed under Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same was liable to be set aside. Regrettably, no one in the State Department at all applied his mind as to whether the said Lai Babu Rai was a workman in an industry because that was a condition precedent for a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Mechanically and for whatever other reason may be reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. Even before the Industrial Tribunal apparently no such objection was taken. The Industrial Tribunal, on basis of evidence led before it. held that respondent No. 1 had worked for more than 240 days and, as such, compliance of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was necessary before his dismissal. That not having been done, it set aside the dismissal and ordered for reinstatement of petitioner with full back wages notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was a daily wages worker in Flood Protection Division of a Department of the Government. Now, the Executive Engineer assails the said order and the primary objection is that the Punpun Flood Protection Division is a part of sovereign function of the welfare State and is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. If that be so then not only the reference without jurisdiction the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference and/or decide the matter. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that this objection not having been taken before the Tribunal should not be permitted to be raised before this Court. 4. If that be so then not only the reference without jurisdiction the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference and/or decide the matter. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that this objection not having been taken before the Tribunal should not be permitted to be raised before this Court. 4. Having considered the matter, I am of opinion that the question as raised by the petitioner in this writ application goes to the route of jurisdiction of the authority passing the order. That is a question of law. If the authority lacked the jurisdiction then it is well settled that even consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction. Having not taken the objection as to the inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot preclude the party from raising such an objection at a later stage of the said proceeding. In that view of the matter, the objection as raised by respondent No. 1 is rejected. 5. Coming to the question whether the Industrial Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction, the answer has to be in favour of the petitioner. In my view, this question is no more open to debate. This question has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) V/s. K. Somasetty & Others since, 1997 LabIC 2651 and the said decision has been applied and followed in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Koshi Project Workers Association V/s. State of Bihar & Others, Letters Patent Appeal No. 884 of 1996 which was decided on 26th September, 1997. 6. In the latter case (LPA), their Lordships were dealing with persons who were engaged in Koshi Project Gandak Yojana and their Lordships, after examining various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court held that the Irrigation Department of Government is not industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, respondent No. 1 is working in Punpun Flood Protection Division. The judgment of the Apex Court, as noticed above, would squarely apply where in exercise of sovereign function of a public welfare State, certain departments are created. Those departments cannot be held to be industry. Here in a welfare State, flood protection is a sovereign responsibility and a part of the welfare obligation of the State. The judgment of the Apex Court, as noticed above, would squarely apply where in exercise of sovereign function of a public welfare State, certain departments are created. Those departments cannot be held to be industry. Here in a welfare State, flood protection is a sovereign responsibility and a part of the welfare obligation of the State. By no stretch of imagination, this can be held to be an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. If it be so, as found by this Court, then the very reference to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. There was a complete lack of jurisdiction in the matter. 7. That being so, the award given by the Industrial Tribunal is nullity in eye of law and is so held. It is ineffectual and cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application is, thus, allowed.