Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer against the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi in Adjudication Case No. 147 of 2002 dated 30.1.2012 by which the respondent workman has been directed to be reinstated together with payment of 20,000/- towards compensation in lieu of back-wages.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had worked in the Irrigation Department as ‘Beldar’ from 1988 onward. At any rate he claimed to have worked continuously from 1.3.1991 to 30.11.1991 during which period the said respondent further claimed to have worked for 275 days. Thereafter, he claimed to have been wrongly terminated w.e.f. 1.12.1991. While it appears that the Irrigation Department had got prepared a list of workman who were similarly placed as the respondents for consideration of their claims for regularization, it is a fact that the respondent was not regularized nor his engagement was continued beyond 1.12.1991.

3. It is in this background after ten years a conciliation proceeding is said to have been initiated in 2001 and, thereafter, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Varanasi in 2002 which has given rise to the award impugned in the present writ petition.

4. The reference so made reads as under:

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh vo/ks'k jkW; iq= Jh jke ujs'k vkSj in csynkl dh lsok,a fnukad 1-12-1991 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok os/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks fookfnr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@NfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdu vU; fooj.k lfgrA**

5. Before the Labour Court, parties filed their written statements and also led evidence. While respondent workman led evidence in the shape of various lists, disclosing on one hand his enagement for a period of 275 days from 1.3.1991 to 30.11.1991, he also produced other documentary evidence to indicate similarly situated persons, some of whom were claimed to be a junior to the said respondent, had been continued to be engaged after 1.12.1991, till as late as 1997 and even thereafter.

6. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the respondent was only a muster roll employee engaged on the basis of the exigency of work and that he had been paid his wages for the period of his engagement but that did not create any right in favour of the respondent to be continued or to be regularized in service. Those claims, according to the petitioner would be determined by exigency of work, the Services Rules etc.

7. The Labour Court upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence reached the conclusion that the respondents had worked for a period of more than 240 day in the 12 calender months immediately preceding his date of termination, being 1.12.1991. Based this solitary finding, the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement to the respondent workman.

8. Heard Sri A.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aman Dev Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

9. While Sri A.K. Upadhyay would submit the reference was made belatedly and the claim so raised was stale, Sri Singh on the other hand would argue that the respondent workman had been continuously pursuing the matter with the authority and that till as late as 1997, according to the petitioner’s own document, his claim for regularization was pending consideration at that time. Thereafter, it is stated that the services of the respondent workman were not restored or revived. Therefore, conciliation was initiated at his instance, in the year 2001.

10. Second, Sri Upadhyay would contend, merely because the respondent had worked for more than 240 days, it cannot be said that he is entitled to reinstatement irrespective of his status being of a muster roll employee and further irrespective of the fact that he has been found to have worked for a short period of ten months only and remained dis-engaged since then and that engagement of respondent workman was based an exigency of work.

11. He would also conte