The continuous service of the workman and the non-compliance of statutory provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination bad, leading to the award of reinstatement with full back wages.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard Shri Manish Goyal for the petitioners and Shri K.P. Agarwal assisted by Sri A.K. Sinha for the contesting respondent.

2. The petitioners have challenged the award dated 16.12.1983 by means of this writ petition. By the aforesaid award the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages.

3. The brief narration of events for deciding the controversy in this writ petition is as under.

4. The workman Sri Mirazul Haque Siddiqui is alleged to have been appointed by the petitioner on 29.12.1977 u/s 70 of the U.P. Municipalities Act as a temporary Assistant Inspector-cum-Meter Reader. It is further alleged that the appointment of the workman-respondent no. 2 was extended from time to time upto 15.6.1978. His services were terminated by order dated 14.6.1978 as no longer required. It is claimed that the order of termination was tried to be served upon respondent No. 2, but he refused to accept the order after reading the same and as such the order of termination was sent to him by Registered A.D. on 21.6.1978.

5. The workman concerned raised an industrial dispute. On conciliation proceedings having failed the following reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra for adjudication where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 67/1980; --

KYA SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNE SMRAMIK MIRAJUL MAQUE SIDDIQUI (PUTRA SWARGIYA SHAMSUL HAQUE) KO DINANK 20.7.78 SE KARYA SE PRATMAK/BANCHIT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK MAI? YADI NAHI, TO SAMBHANDMIT SMRAMIK KYA LABH/ANUTOSH PANE KA ADMIKARI MAI TATHA. ANYA KIS VIVARAN SAMIT?

6. On the basis of pleadings between the parties, an additional issue was framed as under :--

Whether there was no relationship of Master and Servant between the parties? If so, its effect?

7. The employers in their written statement before the Labour Court refuted the claim of the workman on the grounds that: --

1. The workman was an employee of Water Works Department, Aligarh, under the Municipal Board, Aligarh and as such he could not file his claim under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The Officer-in Charge of Municipa Board and the Engineer Water Works Department have wrongly been made a party by the Government and the reference therefore is bad as the Municipal Board has not been made a parry to the industrial dispute.

3. The workman had not completed 240 clays of continuous service and as such he cannot be granted any relief by the Labour Court.

8. The Labour Court by the impugned award held that the Water Works, Aligarh was governed by Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. which has also been admitted by Sri Ram Narain Nigam, who was formerly the Water Works Engineer at Aligarh, admitted this fact in his evidence and as such the objections of the employers that the workman being an employee of Water Works Department, Aligarh under the Municipal Board, Aligarh could raise industrial dispute under the U.P. Industral Disputes Act, 1947, had no force.

9. It was further held that Ram Narain Nigam, the employers" witness, had confirmed in his evidence that the Water Works Engineer has direct control over the staff of the Water Works and the officer incharge of the Municipal Board; is also incharge of Water Works and that the services of the workman were terminated on 15.6.1978 under the signatures of the Engineer Water Works with the approval of officer incharge. It was also held that since the workman was not direct workman of Municipal Board but of the Water Works Department, the officer incharge and the Engineer Water Works have rightly been made parties by the Government and the reference order is not bad because Municipal Board has not been made a party.

10. After considering the question as to whether the workman had been in continuous service of the Water Works Department, the Labour Court by the impugned award gave a finding of fact after referring to the evidence of EW-1, Sri Mahesh Chandra and