JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. challenging the impugned award dated 19.10.2015 published on 30.01.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Firozabad with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 not to enforce the aforesaid award.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner (hereinafter referred to ‘as MVVNL’) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act-1956 engaged in the business of distribution of electricity within specified areas under the license granted to it by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of powers under the Electricity Act-2003. The writ petition contains various pleadings with regard to status of the petitioner-Company, however, since the writ petition arises out of an award passed under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act-1947’), it is not necessary to enter into details of such aspects which may not be relevant for the purposes of deciding the controversy. However, emphasis of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has framed U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Parichalkiya Karmchari Varg Seva Viniymawali1995 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Regulations-1995’) governing the services of its employees and workers.

3. The respondent no. 4-Workman raised a dispute regarding termination of his services w.e.f. 21.03.2006 and pursuant to a reference made, a case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 42 of 2007. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Labour Court, Firozabad wherein it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 46 of 2015. The case of the workman is that he was appointed on the post of Sub Station Operator on 11.07.1986 on a temporary basis as a daily wager and he had worked in the Establishment upto 20.03.2006, whereafter, his services were orally terminated on 21.03.2006. He contends that oral termination of his services was contrary to law and, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated on the post with continuity in past services alongwith arrears of salary, increments and bonus etc. w.e.f. 21.03.2006 upto the date of reinstatement.

4. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner-Department is that the workman was never appointed and he had never worked on any post. Relying upon the aforesaid Regulations of 1995, it is contended by the Department that all appointments in the Organisation were made by issuing letters of appointment by the Competent Authorities; that no letter of appointment was ever issued to the respondent; the respondent never joined the Department; the posts are filled up holding rigorous selection process; the respondent tried to secure employment in the Organization by hook and crook; the respondent did not fall within the definition of workman; there was no relationship of employer-employee in between the Department and the respondent since the respondent was not an employee/workman in the Organisation, no question of termination of his services arose; no salary was ever paid to the respondent; there was a ban imposed on appointment since 1979 from appointing employees on Muster Roll and temporary basis and that there was no post of Sub Station Operator.

5. The petitioner-Department also filed a rejoinder before Labour Court stating that respondent no. 4 was never appointed as a daily wager; that Electriciy Urban Division-III Bareilly was created on 01.04.1991 and that respondent no. 4 had never worked in the Division, therefore, question of completion of 240 days did not arise. On behalf of the Department Shri G.K. Saxena, Retired Junior Engineer, Sri Pramod, Trainee Junior Engineer, filed affidavit on 17.01.2008 & Shri S.K. Saxena, employed in Division-III filed an affidavit on 09.01.2008. In the affidavit, Shri G