The distinction between temporary and permanent employees, and the consideration of factors such as the nature of employment and length of service, influenced the court's decision to deny the relief of reinstatement to the daily wage employee.

ORDER :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. Heard Smt. Sarita Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Mirzapur dated 30.4.2014 in Adjudication Case No. 23 of 2009, arising from the following dispute that was referred for adjudication:-

^^D;k ÁHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh] fet+kZiqj }kjk Jh ?ku';ke nqcs iq= Jh y{ehdkar nqcs in xsVdhij dh lsok,a fnukad 26-09-2003 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha] rks lEcaf/kr deZpkjh D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ@vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl frfFk o vU; fooj.k lfgrA**

3. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner who is the workman, filed his written statement. He set out the a case of engagement made by the respondent no.2/Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mirzapur in August, 1991. He also claimed to have worked since then till September, 2003. He gave description of various posts on which he worked for different periods, till his oral termination on 26.9.2003. The petitioner further pleaded to have worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year during the period of his engagement by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer. Clearly, the petitioner did not claim any regular appointment on any substantive post. However, he did plead the fact of having worked for a long duration of time at the government department being the office of Divisional Forest Officer.

4. The respondent-department also filed certain statements wherein a specific plea was raised of the petitioner having worked as a daily wage employee, subject to exigency of work being available with the respondent no.2. The exact nature of claim made by the petitioner was also disputed in other respects.

5. By way of evidence, the petitioner filed certificates issued by officers of the respondent-Forest Department to establish his working for the respondent no.2 for various periods. Also, the petitioner filed an application on 11.3.2013 to compel the respondent-department to produce the attendance register. Though, the respondent-department stated, it did not have any document in it's possession, the petitioner-workman produced certain documents to establish having worked for various periods.

6. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner had been successful in establishing that he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year during years 1999, 2000 and 2003.

7. At the same time, the Labour Court was of firm opinion, there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had been appointed on a permanent post, and that his status was only of daily wage employee.

8. In face of such finding of fact reached by the Labour Court, it concluded, the petitioner being a daily wage employee in a government department, he may not be entitled to relief of reinstatement. However, in view of further finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year during years 1999, 2000 and 2003, he was held entitled to compensation under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. Assailing the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman states, once the petitioner was found to have worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year for different periods and further in view of the fact that the petitioner had worked over a long period of time since 1991 to 2003, the award of the Labour Court denying the relief of reinstatement is wholly erroneous. She has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D Ed) and Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324, and Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana), (2010) 3 SCC 637. Also, reliance has been placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-C No. 35670 of 2014 (Bhupati Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.), decided on 9.