IMPORTANT POINT
The Irrigation Department is classified as an industry under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and termination without compliance with statutory provisions is unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/ State and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Baquer Mehdi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 raised the industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication vide reference order dated 16. 1.2006 with respect to termination of service of respondent no.2/ workman with effect from 29.9.1998. The aforementioned reference was registered as adjudication case No. 205/ 2006. Respondent no.2/ workman filed his written statement (Paper No. 5-A) stating that he was working on the post of Chowkidar in department of petitioner since 1986 and worked up to 28.9.1998. It was also stated in the written statement that with effect from 29. 9.1998, the service of the petitioner was orally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also mentioned in the written statement that respondent no.2 had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Petitioner/ employer had also filed his written statement (Paper No. 9-A) stating that department is a Government department and provisions of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. It was also stated in the written statement that respondent no.2/ workman had never been employed in the department and there was no master and servant relationship between them. It was also stated that there was no question of termination of service of respondent no.2 with effect from 29.9.1998 as he never worked in the department. Respondent no.2/ workman filed his reply to the written statement of the petitioner/ employer. Respondent no.1/ Labour Court considering the evidence on record decided the dispute vide award dated 30.10.2015 which was published on 5.4.2016 by which respondent no.2/ workman was reinstated in service and 50% of the backwages was awarded from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 30.10.2015 published on 05.4.2016 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut (respondent No.1)"

3. This Court vide order dated 9.8.2016 entertained the matter and granted interim protection to the effect that effect and operation of the impugned award dated 30.10.2015 shall be kept in abeyance provided petitioner reinstates the respondent no.2 within period of one month from today and continues to pay current wages as per law. On 4.10.2016, this Court granted one month further time to learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit and extended the interim order.

4. In pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 9.8.2016 and 4.10.2016, the parties have exchanged their affidavit.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State/ petitioner submitted that respondent no.2 had never worked in the petitioner- department therefore there was no question for retrenchment/ termination of service of respondent no.2. He further submitted that there was no relation of employer and employee between Department and respondent no.2, as such, provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the matter. He further submitted that Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division and Development is department of State Government and is not an industry, as such, the impugned award is wholly illegal. He further submitted that Labour Court has placed reliance on the document which were filed by workman although the same were not proved by his evidence, as such, the award is illegal. He further submitted that impugned award has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that Labour Court has shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner to prove that respondent no.2/