JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has arisen from the award dated 8.9.2000, passed by Sri Raja Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (II) U.P., Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 80 of 1997, answering the Reference in favour of workman, holding that termination of the workman-respondent No. 1 on 1.11.1990 was illegal and unjustified. He is entitled for reinstatement but so far as arrears of salary is concerned, the same would be payable from the date of receipt of Reference by the Tribunal i.e. 24.10.1997, till the date of reinstatement. 2. The workman claimed to have been employed in the establishment of Executive Engineer, Lucknow Division Sharda Nahar on 1.10.1987 and discharged duties as Beldar. He was discontinued on 31.10.1990 without giving any retrenchment notice or compensation etc., though he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. Petitioner employer contested the matter though admitted that workman was employed on daily wage basis as Beldar and discontinued on 31.10.1990 since there was no work and the concerned project was already completed. 3. Workman raised industrial dispute and the same was referred under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to “Act 1947”) for adjudication of Industrial Tribunal to vide notification dated 2109-15/L.R.C.B. 553/96 dated 24.10.1997. Reference read as under : ^^of.kZr fLFkfr esa esjk vfHkfu.kZ; gS fd lsok;kstd }kjk Jfed Jh gfj'pUnz iq= Jh fo'kqu n;ky dh lsok;sa fnukad 1-11-90 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSaA Jfed gVk;s x;s fnukad ls lsok esa cgkyh dk vf/kdkjh gS ysfdu tgka rd cSBdh ds fnuksa ds osru vkfn dk iz'u gS Jfed lanHkkZns'k ds U;k;f/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ds fnukad 24-10-97 ls cgky fd;s tkus rd dh vof/k dk gh gdnkj curk gsA bl okn esa esjk ;gh vfHkfu.kZ; gSA** “In the given circumstances, it is my award that termination of services of workman Sri Harish Chandra, son of Sri Vishnu Dayal on 1.11.1990 by the employer is improper and illegal. The workman is entitled to be reinstated in service from the date of his termination, but so as the question regarding his wages during the period he was out of job is concerned, he is entitled to be reinstated from 24.10.97, i.e. the the date on which Reference was received in the Tribunal. In this case, it is my award.” 4. In this case, it is my award.” 4. The Tribunal has answered reference in favour of workman, hence this writ petition has been filed by employer State of U.P. 5. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner to assail the impugned award is that employer is part of irrigation department and not an industry and therefore, entire proceedings before the industrial Tribunal are illegal and without jurisdiction, he has placed reliance on Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) v. K. Somasetty and others, 1997 (76) FLR 851 (SC) : 1997 (5) SCC 434 , wherein the Apex Court held that Telecommunication Department and Irrigation Department is not an industry. 6. In M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M. P. and another, on 27 February, 1985 AIR 860 (MP), which is a three Judge judgment, the Apex Court referred to an earlier decision affirming that Irrigation Department is an industry. Same view has been followed in Deshraj v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) SCC 537 . 7. The decision in K. Somasetty (Supra) observing that Irrigation department and Telecommunication Department are not industry since the function of public welfare of State is sovereign, came up for consideration before larger Bench in General Manager Telecom v. S. Sriniwashan Rao and others, (1997) 8 SCC 767 ; 1998 (78) FLR 143, wherein the Court overruled the aforesaid decision in Somasetty (supra) with regard to Telecommunication Department, since that was the only issue involved therein. Reasons assigned for Telecommunication Department and Irrigation Department both were same in Somasetty (supra). It is true that apparently nothing has been said with regard to observations made in respect of Irrigation Department but looking to entire facts and circumstances and also the earlier decisions, in my view, the law of land prevailing till date is that Irrigation Department is also an industry unless any other view is taken by a larger Bench of Apex Court. 8. 8. Recently Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and others, on in Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2006 decided on 21 October, 2013 has considered a similar objection raised on behalf of the appellant State, i.e. activities of Irrigation Department cannot be considered to be an ‘industry’ and relied on a reference made for reconsideration of decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Swerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 (2) SCC 213 . The Court took the view that the mere fact that correctness of decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Swerage Board (supra) has been referred to be considered by a larger Bench in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh, 2005 (5) SCC 1 , will not obstruct the Court in following the existing law on covered by 7 Judges Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Swerage Board (Supra) which is presently holding the field, laying down that Irrigation Department is an ‘industry’. This Court is bound by the aforesaid authority of the Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli (supra) delivered recently. 9. I am therefore, clearly of view that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly held the petitioner employer as an ‘industry’ and answered the reference in accordance therewith. 10. No other point has been argued. 11. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ———————