JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. By means of this petition, petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, whereby he directed the respondent to be reinstated with back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed himself to be a casual labourer working with the petitioner department since 19.4.1989. He further alleged that the petitioner department was an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) and had without caring for the provisions of the Act, terminated his services in July, 2000. 3. Following reference was sent for adjudication to the learned Tribunal:- Whether the Central Ration Stand, Subathu is an Industry as per I.D. Act, 1947? If so, whether action of the management of the Central Ration Stand, Subathu in terminating the services of Shri Mohan Singh son of Sh. Jagdish Singh, Casual Labour w.e.f. 23.7.2000 is legal and just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? 4. The parties filed their pleadings and led evidence in support thereof and on the basis of the same, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. The award has been assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not an industry and, therefore, the respondent could not have been treated to be a workman. It was averred that engagement of the respondent was for a specified period during Kargil war for loading and unloading of equipments of Armed forces. None of the functions and duties being discharged by the petitioner could be said to be of an industrial character and therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal has virtually usurped jurisdiction and passed the impugned award. 5. In reply to the petition, respondent has averred that the petitioner department was an industry and the respondent being an admitted worker of the petitioner was, therefore, a workman within the definition of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. 5. In reply to the petition, respondent has averred that the petitioner department was an industry and the respondent being an admitted worker of the petitioner was, therefore, a workman within the definition of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. M. Aslam and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 720 concluded that the respondent could claim the privilege of a workman being a government servant while working in the canteen. 7. It appears that the Tribunal was totally oblivious to the fact that the judgment in Aslam's case (supra) holding the canteen employees to be government servant was specifically set aside by a larger Bench of Hon’ble three Judges in R.R. Pillai (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Commanding Officer, Headquarters Southern AIR Command (U) and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 311 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while over ruling the judgment made in Aslam's case (supra), held that the employees of unit-run canteens (URCs) run in Army, Navy and Armed Forces are not the government servants. 8. That apart, it would also be noticed that the respondent had led no evidence whatsoever to show as to how the petitioner could be termed to be an industry. It would further be noticed that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 213 to conclude that the industrial character of an organization could be seen on the basis of activities carried on and the functions discharged by it. Since the function of the canteen was to provide service to the military persons by supplying certain commodities of public utilities, therefore, it was an industry. 9. Notably, the Tribunal again appears to be oblivious to the fact that insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply’s case (supra) is concerned, same is pending for re-consideration before a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the order passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court instead of State of U.P. vs. Jaibir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1 . Not only this, once it was the case of the petitioner that the respondent’s services were taken only for a brief stint that too for the purpose of loading and unloading the Arms during the Kargil War, it is not understood as to on what basis the Tribunal concluded that the respondent had been serving in the unit-run canteen to provide service to the military persons by supplying certain commodities or public utility. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the record and, therefore, suffers from perversity and is accordingly set aside. 10. However, before parting, it may be noticed that the respondent had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed the respondent to approach the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance. However, as per the reply filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court, it appears that the respondent did not approach the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance. Therefore, it is clarified that the dismissal of this petition would not stand in the way of the petitioner in considering the case of the respondent for grant of any relief to which he may be entitled to under the law. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of along with all pending applications, leaving the parties to bear the costs.