Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner - M/s Farrukhabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter referred to the Dairy Co-operative Society) has filed this petition aggrieved by award dated 20.12.1991, published on 8.4.1992, pronounced by labour Court in adjudication case No. 195 of 1989 (3), U.P., Kanpur.

2. The State Government vide notification dated 7.11.1989 in purported exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made following reference for adjudication before labour Court :

“D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh vHk; jke Msjh eSu iq= Jh rkys flag dks fnukad 14&2&87 ls dk;Z ls izFkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS o ;fn ugha gS rks lEcfU/kr deZpkjh D;k fgrykHk@miykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgrA”

3. Labour Court vide award dated 20.12.1991 impugned in this writ petition has held termination of the workman-respondent No. 3 s/o Tale Ram unjust and illegal. It has directed to give continuity of service w.e.f. 14.2.1987 and benefits including entire period’s salary and also reinstatement in service.

4. The case set up by the employer namely, Dairy Co-operative Society was that workman was engaged on daily wage basis on 1.10.1986 to discharge the duty of dairyman. He was disengaged on 14.2.1987. Workman challenged his disengagement contending that it amounts to termination/retrenchment without any notice or retrenchment compensation and, therefore, is illegal. The employer contended that workman having discharged duties only on 135 days was not entitled for protection under Section 6-N of the Act. Besides, he himself has abandoned the job, hence was not entitled for any relief. It was also contended that there is no industrial dispute and since the workman was a daily wager and neither a member of Union nor otherwise is not competent to raise industrial dispute.

5. Labour Court while considering the matter observed that the workman’s written statement is supported with an affidavit while it is not so in respect to the employer’s written statement. It also observed that workman in his oral deposition stated that he was engaged on 11.10.1985 and was paid Rs. 18.75 p. per day and was terminated on 14.2.1987 when persons junior to him namely, Kunwar Pal and Munna Lal were retained, hence termination is unjust and illegal. Labour Court referred to Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 and observed that the workman’s written statement being supported by an affidavit has to be believed and in absence any thing otherwise shown by employer, the termination is held unjust and illegal.

6. On behalf of the petitioner Shri G.D. Mishra, Advocate contended that U.P. Industrial Dispute Act itself is not applicable in respect of the employees of Co-operative Societies governed by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and, therefore, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that labour Court has misread the entire facts mentioned in para 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the workman. It was stated that he was engaged on 1.10.1986 while in the award labour Court in para 8 it has misread the statement of the workman by observing that he was engaged on 1.10.1985. Oral statement of the workman in absence of any document to support that he was engaged in 1985 could not have been relied on particularly when it was his own case in the written statement that he was engaged on 1.10.1986. Further, in order to consider that any person junior to him was retained, either seniority list ought to have been placed on record or workman must have placed on record letters of appointment of alleged juniors, but mere assertion that his juniors were retained is not sufficient. Further, he himself worked for just about four and half months could not have conferred any seniority and it appears that the finding has been recorded on misreading of documents and ignoring workman’s own case in paragra