By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of Labour Court dated 13.7.2005 published on £ 31.8.2005. made in Adjudication Case No.75 of 2003 referred to it on 5.4.2003. By the said award the Labour court has directed reinstatement of workman/respondent No.5 along 2 with the continuity of service and 50% salary as back wages. Beside this a sum of Rs.500/- was also awarded as cost to the 5 workman to be paid by the employer. 2. It was case of the respondent No.5 that he was appointed as daily wager pipe line fit­ter in Jal Sansthan, Hamirpur Division, Jhansi on 26.9.1991 against a sanctioned post. His work as pipe line fitter was satisfactory and was appreciated by senior officers. It was also his case that he was appointed as trained fit­ter and was getting the wages of trained titter during the period he worked as such w.e.f. 26.9.1991 to 31.12.1992. But all of a sudden he received information from his office on 4.1.1993 that his services were terminated from the post of pipe line fitter, as such no work was taken from him since January, 1993. It was also his case that the post of pipe line fitter was lying vacant in Jal Sansthan, District Hamirpur, Division Jhansi but the ser­vices of respondent No.5 were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing against the principles of natural justice, which amounted to his retrenchment within the meaning of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without following the procedure prescribed for such retrenchment. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of termination the respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10189 of 1993 Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. General Man­ager, Jal Sansthan, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of termination the respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10189 of 1993 Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. General Man­ager, Jal Sansthan, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others. In the said writ petition, the allega­tion of the petitioners was that the respon­dent No.5 was I.T.I, in electrical trade and not in fitter trade and further allegation was that since the respondent No.5 .was engaged as muster roll employee and had worked on daily wage basis for 30 days sanctioned on each time and had worked only for a period of one year and three months, it was for him to prove that he had completed 240 days ac­tual service to become entitled for getting benefits under Section 6-N of the Act and Rule 42 of U.P. Industrial Rules 1957 framed there under. It was further alleged that the burden of proof was upon the workman to establish by oral and documentary evidence that he was appointed against permanent va­cant post in accordance with law. 4. After hearing both the parties, this Court vide judgement and order dated 11.10.2002 had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5 on account of availability of alternative remedy to him under U.P. In­dustrial Disputes Act and rules framed there­ under with the following observations:- "The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Indus­trial Disputes Act. 1947. The disputed ques­tions of facts involved in this writ petition require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced before the Labour Court. The ques­tion as to whether the termination is legal and valid, is within realm of First Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This Court will not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding disputed questions of facts by taking evidence for which the Labour Court is best equipped. In these circumstances, it would be proper to rel­egate the petitioner to the alternative and ef­ficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court. If the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will call the parties and try to amica­bly settle the dispute. In these circumstances, it would be proper to rel­egate the petitioner to the alternative and ef­ficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court. If the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer within two months from today, the said authority will call the parties and try to amica­bly settle the dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be immediately re­ferred by the competent authority to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be, for adjudication. The reference so made, shall be decided by the Labour Court in the manner prescribed and time limits as provided in Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Rules, 1957 for filing written statement, rejoinder docu­ments and evidence etc. If necessary, the pro­ceedings may be held on day-to-day basis un­der Rule 12(4) of the Rules. The case may be decided preferably within a period of six months and not later than six months from the date of receipt of reference. For these reasons the writ petition is dis­missed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs." 5. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition the respondent No. 5 approached the concerned Regional Conciliation Officer as directed by this. Court, who in turn referred the dispute before the Labour Court, Kanpur which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 75 of 2003. The reference of industrial dispute was made to the effect that "Whether on 4.1.93 the termination of se/-vices of workman Sri Subhash Chandra Tripathi son of Sri Ram Naresh Tripathi posted as Fitter by the employer is proper or legal. If not so, whether the workman is en­titled for any relief/damage and from which date with other particulars." 6. Thereafter the parties have submitted their written statements along with affidavits before the Labour Court, Kanpur stating their cases and they have also adduced their re­spective evidences and after hearing the case the Labour Court has found that the termina­tion of respondent No.5 was illegal and con­trary to the provisions of law/Industrial Dis­putes Act, as such directed for his reinstate­ment in service along with the continuity of service, and payment of 50% salary as back wage during the period under which the re­spondent No.5 was out of employment on account of termination of his services. A sum of Rs. A sum of Rs. 500/- has also been awarded as cost to be paid by the employer to the employee, hence this petition. 7. The thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners-employer is that having regard to the fact that the respondent No.5 was daily wage employee of Jal Sansthan, the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to him and the award made by Labour Court against the petitioners is without jurisdiction and nullity. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3657 and other decisions of this Court rendered in Lochan Prasad v. Executive Engineer, Pub­lic Works Department, Rashtriya Marg Jyoti Chauraha, Bareilly and another, 2004 (1) AWC403, Mohd. Umar v. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Suar, Rampur and another, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 174 : 2004 All LJ 1412, Rajesh Singh v. Labour Court, Allahabad and others, 2006(4) AWC 3661 : 2006 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1212 (All) and Devanand v. State of U.P. and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2235 : 2006 (5) ALJ (NOC) 900 (All). 8. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the respondent workman has cited subsequent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh Butola and another, 2000 (84) FLR 896. Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that ter­mination of services of daily wager cleaner on motor truck belonging to irrigation depart­ment of State Government, attracted the pro­cedure for retrenchment, if he had worked for years in the department. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case although two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that every department of the Government cannot be treated to be "indus­try" and when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "indus­try" to that extent stands excluded. It was fur­ther held that the petitioners of the aforesaid case were not appointed to the post in accor­dance with rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. Under the afore­said circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrench­ment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was fur­ther held that the petitioners of the aforesaid case were not appointed to the post in accor­dance with rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. Under the afore­said circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrench­ment under the Industrial Disputes Act. In my opinion, the aforesaid case has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on the facts, of the aforesaid case and no principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court for its applica­tion in each and every case of daily wage employee. By placing reliance upon the afore­said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court in aforesaid decisions has held that the concept of retrenchment as contemplated by U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the daily wage employees in various Gov­ernment departments. 11. Contrary to the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court referred herein before, in State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh. Butola and another (supra) the Apex Court lias held that the termination of services of daily wager cleaner on motor truck, worked for years, without following the procedure provided for retrenchment as contemplated under Section, 6-N of U.P. In­dustrial Disputes Act, held to be bad and re­instatement with back wages of 50% salary was justified. Thus in later recent case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provi­sions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were attracted even in respect of concerned Gov­ernment Department and further held that in given facts of the case there was no escape from application of provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, if the ser­vices of employee was terminated who had worked for a period of 240 days within twelve calender months preceding to the date of ter­mination of his services. In this view of the matter, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid dispute referred to it as the concept of retrenchment contemplated under Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted appears to be misplaced.in view of aforesaid decision of Apex Court, therefore, cannot not be accepted. 12. There is yet another reason for not dis­turbing the award of Labour Court. 12. There is yet another reason for not dis­turbing the award of Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.5 had ear­lier approached to this Court against the afore­said termination of his services but this Court had dismissed his writ petition as indicated herein before on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to him under the provi­sions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction given by this Court, the respondent'No. 5 has ap­proached the Labour Court and both the peti­tioners as well as respondent Np.5 have sub­mitted to the jurisdiction of Labour Court and participated in the proceeding by filing their written statements and adducing their respec­tive evidences. After hearing the parties, Labour Court has made impugned award in favour of respondent-workman. In such even­tuality, in my opinion, it is not open for the writ petitioners to challenge the impugned award of the Labour Court on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable and on ,that count the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred to it and to make im­pugned award in favour of the respondent No.5. 13. Apart from it, it is to be noted that it is not the case of the petitioners that the estab­lishment in question does not fall within the meaning of "industry" as defined under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. And respondent No.5 was not workman within definition of work­man under said Act, as such in my opinion there is no escape from application of con­cept of "retrenchment" if the termination of services of workman falls within four comers of "retrenchment" defined under the said Act, unless the application of U.P. Industrial Dis­putes Act is excluded by competent legisla­tion in respect of the establishment of the petitioners and/or Respondent No.5 is ex­cluded from the definition of "workman" by such legislation. 14. 14. In this connection, it is significant to mention that, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is "existing law" within the meaning of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution and is re­ferable to item No 22 of entries enumerated in concurrent list of seventh schedule of Con­stitution which deals with the trade unions, industrial and labour disputes, therefore un­less the application of the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in respect of es­tablishment in question and/or Respondent No.5 from the definition of workman are ex­cluded, it are very difficult to assume auto­matic exclusion of application of the provi­sions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and thereby ouster of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide the said dispute referred to it merely because of the reason that respondent No. 5 was employee of Jal Sansthan and the services of employees of Jal Sansthan are governed by the provisions of Section 27 and Section 27-A of U.P. Water Supply and Sew­erage Act 1975 and/or Rules framed there ­under particularly when it is not specific case of petitioners before this court, that by virtue of any particular enactment/legislation in con­sonance with the provisions of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of Labour Court and application of provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have been ex­cluded in respect of establishment in ques­tion as well as Respondent No. 5. Not only this but under aforesaid situation in my opin­ion doctrine of "generalia specialibus non derogant" which means special law shall pre­vail over general law in case of any conflict between them or general law has to yield to special law in such conflict, can also not be pressed into service in aid to the case of peti­tioners. Although the application of the afore­said doctrine is circumscribed by various con­ditions and restrictions or limitations, but one of such conditions is that the aforesaid doc­trine applies only where both the statutes are enacted by competent legislatures in respect of field assigned to them or part of the same statute. None of the aforesaid decisions of this court cited by the learned counsel for the pe­titioners, in my considered opinion, have no­ticed or dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the matter, as such aforesaid decisions rendered by this court are held to be sub-silentio and cannot be treated as binding precedent for determination of the question in controversy involved in instant writ petition. 15. 15. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, J T 2000 (6) SC 320: AIR 2000 SC 2264 Hon'ble Apex Court held that a decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue can­not be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judge­ment is not ratio decidendi. This is the Rule of sub-silentio in the technical sense, when a particular point of law was not consciously determined [See State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. JT1991 (3) SC 268: 1991 (4) SCC 138 para 41] 16. In view of the aforestated legal posi­tion, it is very difficult for me to assume that the concept of "retrenchment" as contem­plated under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, is not attracted and Labour Court had no juris­diction to decide the dispute referred to it. In given facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, there was no illegality with the Labour Court in proceeding with the dispute referred to it, and in making award in favour of respondent No.5. Admittedly the provi­sions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Dis­putes Act have riot been observed while ter­minating the services of respondent No.5, therefore, no fault can be found in the order of reinstatement with back wages granted by Labour Court to the respondent No.5. 17. At any view of the matter, in my opin­ion, in second inning of this litigation between the same party it is not open for this court to review earlier decision dated 11.10.2002, whereby, the respondent No.5. was permit­ted to approach concerned Labour Court thereupon which was directed to decide the said dispute as indicated herein before and has attained the finality between the parties. The findings of the Labour Court are also not erroneous and perverse, so as to call for any interference by this court. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, in my opinion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties shall bear their own cost. Petition dismissed.