JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 01.04.2015 passed in Adjudication Case No. 77 of 2006 (Executive Engineer vs Krishna Murari Sharma) published on 04.11.2015 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly (herein-after referred to as the “Labour Court”).

Facts of the Case

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Tubewell Operator on 27.02.1985 and was assigned duties at Tubewell No. 106 Adhkata, Bareilly. He was given the charge of the said Tubewell under the order dated 30.07.1985 issued by the Assistant Engineer.

3. It is contended that the workman performed duties till October, 1990, but all of a sudden, his services were terminated in November, 1990 without disclosing any reason and without paying him retrenchment compensation. The workman agitated the issue and, ultimately, the matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bareilly, where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 77 of 2006 (Executive Engineer vs Krishna Murari Sharma) for adjudication of the dispute as to whether termination of services of the workman Krishna Murari Sharma w.e.f. 23.11.1990 is legal and, if not, as to what relief/benefit/compensation, the workman is entitled to get?

4. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Labour Court to the contesting parties, the workman filed his reply stating that he was appointed under the Office order No. 12/84/85 numbered as Letter No. 944@1@u0l0o0@fnukad 27-02-1985 and, initially he was sent for training and was appointed on the Tubewill No. 106 Adhkata Bareilly. It was further stated that the workman had been given complete charge of the aforesaid Tubewell under the Order No. 523, dated 30.07.1985 and further letter No. 200, dated 30.07.1985 issued by the Assistant Engineer; his services were full time in nature and that he had worked with full satisfaction of the authorities. It was further contended that violating the provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42, the services of the workman were suddenly terminated in the year 1990. Accordingly, the workman made a prayer that he be reinstated on his post with full backwages and continuity in services. The workman also filed written arguments.

5. On the other hand, the employer (Executive Engineer) submitted his reply before the Labour Court stating that the workman was appointed on a monthly honorarium of Rs.299/-on purely temporary basis, which was mentioned in the conditions of the service agreement itself. The termination of services in April, 1990 was not disputed in the reply, and it was contended that since the Government had declared cadre of part-time Tubewell Operator as a dead cadre, the workman was not entitled for any relief. It was further contended that the Department did not fall within the definition of “Industry” and, therefore, the matter was not covered by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Evidence before Labour Court

6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. A cash book has been annexed along with the writ petition, which shows that the workman was engaged by the Department and was paid salary/honorarium. The workman appeared as D.W.-1 and reiterated his stand in his oral evidence also explaining the nature of works and activities performed by him. He also stated that since after termination of his services, he was unemployed and dependent upon other persons. He also proved the documents on record, which included the Salary Register etc.

7. One Sushil Sharma, the Assistant Engineer was examined by the Department, who stated that the services of the workman according to the agreement were purely part-time, which were extended upto 30.09.1989 and the said agreement was not further extended. The said witness expressed his ignorance about sending/service of notice to the workman before termination of his services. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of t