JUDGMENT Sanju Panda, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner-workman challenges the award dated 5th December, 1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.66 of 1994 for not granting any relief as prayed for by the petitioner-workman. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Night Watchman on 7.10.1984 in Naktideul P.W.D. (R & B) Section in the district of Sambalpur on daily wage basis. While continuing as such, in the year 1989, the petitioner was working at the residence of Junior Engineer as per the direction of the authority. While continuing as such, the petitioner did not agree to do certain house hold work, for which the Junior Engineer became annoyed and deducted Rs.60/-from his wages after obtaining signature on the stamped receipt. Thereafter, he also stopped paying wages to the petitioner for the months of November and December, 1990 and on 13th January, 1991 he told the petitioner that his service has been terminated. The petitioner protested the said high handed action of the Junior Engineer and also approached the Assistant Engineer, but to no avail. Finding no other way, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur on 30th January, 1991. Instead of several letters issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur, the Junior Engineer did not appear. Accordingly, the conciliation proceeding failed and report was submitted on 3rd November, 1993. On the other hand, while conciliation proceeding was pending, a meeting was held on 20th November, 1992 with many other officers and office bearers of the association of the petitioner’s in the Office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (R & B) Division, Deogarh to consider the case of the petitioner along with four other workmen. In the said meeting, It was decided that the Executive Engineer will inquire into the matter and take necessary steps accordingly. Thereafter, the other four workmen were reinstated into service and the case of the petitioner was not considered. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the following reference: “Whether the termination of services of Sri Dayanidhi Sahu by way of refusal of employment by the Junior Engineer, Naktideul (R & B) Section with effect from 13.1.1991 is illegal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri D.Sahu is entitled?” 3. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the following reference: “Whether the termination of services of Sri Dayanidhi Sahu by way of refusal of employment by the Junior Engineer, Naktideul (R & B) Section with effect from 13.1.1991 is illegal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri D.Sahu is entitled?” 3. In the said reference, the opposite parties filed their written statement and contested the case taking a stand that neither any appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner as a Night Watchman nor any written order terminating his service from 14th January, 1991 was issued. The claim made by the applicant regarding his service are all vague, false and imaginary. The D.L.Rs are being engaged through contractor on daily wage basis as and when required for a particular work and after completion of that work, the D.L.Rs are automatically disengaged and this practice was a stop gap arrangement to meet the exigencies of governmental work. The P.W.D. (R & B) Department is a Government organization which is governed by Rules and Regulations and therefore, it cannot be treated as an Industry. As such, the claim of the workman is not maintainable. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues which are quoted hereunder: (1) Whether the termination of services of the workman by way of refusal of employment by the management w.e.f. 13.1.1991 is legal and/or justified? (2) If so, to what relief workman is entitled? (3) Whether the workman was actually employed by the Contractor and not by the Management? (4) Whether the case is maintainable in this court or not? On the above issues, the learned Labour Court has recorded the finding of the apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Jai Narain Singh, 1996 SCC (L & S) 222(I) wherein it was held that Central Ground Water Board is not an Industry. In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another v. Jgannath Maruti Kondhare and others, 1996 SCC (L & S) 500, the apex Court held that the dichotomy of sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the State does not really exist. Whether a particular function of the state is or is not, a sovereign function depends on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise. Whether a particular function of the state is or is not, a sovereign function depends on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise. Hence it becomes crystal clear that all the functions of a Government exercised by it through its various departments are necessarily not sovereign function and also on the basis of the decision rendered in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K.Somasetty and others, 1997 SCC (L & S) 1229, the Irrigation Department and Telecommunication Department are not an “Industry” within the meaning of definition under the Industrial Disputes Act as held in Union of India v. Jai Narain Singh. Under these circumstances the State is not an “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise also the project has been closed, the respondent has no right to the post, since he had been appointed on daily wage basis. In view of the above decisions, the Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioner-workman that he was working as a Night Watchman to watch the Departmental Office is not correct. The department has been created by the Government to carry out its function for welfare of the public which amounts to sovereign function of the Government discharged by the State through department. The workman has no remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that even for the sake of argument the P.W. Department and office of opposite parties is treated to be an Industry, still then, the petitioner has no remedy, as he was working on daily wage basis as and when required. When his work is not needed, he has been disengaged from the work and as such, the same cannot be treated to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. On such finding, he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and passed the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the decision of the apex Court as well as the decision of this Court where it has been held that P.W. Department is an Industry. On such finding, he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and passed the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the decision of the apex Court as well as the decision of this Court where it has been held that P.W. Department is an Industry. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Gujarat & another v. P.W.D. Employees Union, 2002 10 SCC 147 , Desraj v. State of Punjab & Others, AIR 1988 (SC) 1182 , and Executive Engineer National Highways v. Industrial Tribunal & Others), (1995) ILLJ 470 (Ori.),. In view of the above decisions, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with back-wages. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate however supported the impugned award and submitted that since there is no material available on record that the petitioner was engaged or disengaged by the Department, rightly the award has been passed by the court below and the petitioner-workman being a daily wager, engaged as and when necessary, has no right to continue. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the report of the Cancelation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Sambalpur (Annexure-1), it reveals that the petitioner was a workman and he has rendered service for a period of more than six years i.e. from 7th October, 1984 to 11th January, 1991. While disengaging the petitioner or to show otherwise that his service was no more required, the opposite parties have not issued any notice to him nor any compensation or monetary benefit was offered to him. The daily wagers, who are junior to the petitioner and whose services were at par with the petitioner have been regularized in the meantime. Therefore, his application raising Industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable claiming reinstatement with back wages as he has been denied to continue in service. 8. The apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev.Corp. & Anr. Therefore, his application raising Industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable claiming reinstatement with back wages as he has been denied to continue in service. 8. The apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev.Corp. & Anr. V. Gitam Singh reported in 2013 LLR 225 has held that when the termination of a workman is held illegal, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Supreme Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in case of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of the Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Hence, the normal rule that the dismissed workman is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. The principles as relevant for granting relief of reinstatement when termination of workman is held to be illegal. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. Now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back-wages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. The apex Court further held that the compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, should have been proper to a daily wager who has completed merely 240 days’ service hence the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering that the reinstatement with back-wages is no longer a rule without exceptions. While granting a relief of reinstatement to a workman whose termination is held to be illegal, i.e. violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. 9. 9. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court sets aside the impugned award dated 5th December, 1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.66 of 1994 in exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is proper to a daily wager who has completed 240 days, the Executive Engineer P.W.D. (R & B) Division, Deogarh-opposite party no.4 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand) only as compensation to the petitioner-workman within a period of six weeks from today. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of.