JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Looking at the facts of the case, the learned counsel had agreed for final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing.

3. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated 20th August, 2013 in Service Single –C No.6258 of 1993 has been challenged.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under:

The respondent was engaged as a daily wager typist, as and when services of a typist were required by the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. from 1988. It is an admitted fact that she had worked intermittently till 19th January, 1990 and thereafter she was never engaged by the appellant Authority. According to the respondent, she had worked for 244 days in the year preceding to 19th January, 1990, whereas the case of the appellants was that she had worked for hardly 220 days in the year preceding to the date when she was engaged as a daily wager last.

5. The respondent had raised a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act upon her termination as she had not been given retrenchment compensation and ultim