Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.C. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Mishra for respondent No. 2 the contesting workman.

2. This writ petition was earlier dismissed on the ground of laches vide judgement dated 11.8.2008 (by Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.), whereagaisnt an appeal was filed before the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 2324 of 2009. The appeal has been allowed vide judgment dated 6.4.2009 and the Apex Court passed following order:

“On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that delay in filing the writ petition should have been condoned by the High Court. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and condone the delay of 75 days in filing the writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition shall stand restored on the file of the High Court, which shall now be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible.

The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”

3. This is how the matter has come up again before this Court. Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsel for the parties I proceed to hear and decide the matter finally under the Rules of the Court, at this stage.

4. The petitioner Agra Jal Sansthan aggrieved by the order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by Labour Court, U.P., Agra in purported exercise of power under Section 11-C of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “1947 Act” read with Section 13-A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to “1946 Act”) has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the same. The Labour Court, by means of the impugned order, has declared that the workman is “Electrician” and entitled for the pay-scale for the said post.

5. The basic contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, Section 11-C of 1947 Act does not empower the Labour Court to make a declaration with respect to the status of a workman considering oral and documentary evidence since that is beyond the scope of Section 11-C and is permissible only when a reference for adjudication is made under Section 4-A of Act 1947.

6. The brief facts set up by the petitioner in the writ petition are as under:

7. The petitioner is a local body constituted under Section 18 of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “1975 Act”). It is engaged to discharge public functions as enshrined under Section 24 of 1975 Act in the city area of Agra. In the exigency of discharge of its functions, it used to employ staff in various manner. Respondent No. 2 Sri Raghuvir Singh was engaged on daily wage basis. Later on he was selected through a Selection Committee and regularized on the post of Khalasi/Beldar in the pay-scale of 2550-3200 by order dated 23rd October, 2000 passed by the General Manager, Jal Sansthan, Agra, placed on probation of one year.

8. After almost one year and eleven months respondent No. 2 moved an application purported to be under Section 11-C of 1947 Act read with Section 13-A of 1946 Act stating that he was engaged without issuing any letter of appointment as ‘Wireman’ in August, 1986 and was paid wages of skilled labour on daily basis. Agra Jal Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as “AJS”) is an “industry” and therefore is an “Industrial Establishment” under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “1936 Act”). It is governed by 1946 Act. AJS has not framed its own Standing Orders though it was obligatory upon it to frame such Standing Orders. So long as Standing order are not framed, Model Standing Orders are applicable to AJS in view of Section 12-A of 1946 Act. Under Model Standing Orders, the workers are categorized as permanent, probationer, officiating, temporary and apprentice. Respondent No. 2 being skilled category workman was discharging duties of permanent nature. He was neither a casual nor a