The Irrigation Department is classified as an 'Industry' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and retrenchment without notice or compensation violates Section 6(N).

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners.

2. The State has preferred present writ petition being aggrieved by the award dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Lucknow in Case No. 279/2001 (Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department U.P., Lucknow and Ors. v. Shiv Nath).

3. Notices were issued to the respondents and the service has been deemed to be sufficient.

4. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that respondent-workman was engaged as daily wage labourer for temporary work in the Irrigation Department due to exigencies of work between 15.07.1986 to 31.12.1991. He worked in the Department from 01.12.1987 to 31.12.1987, 01.10.1988 to 31.10.1988 and and 01.02.1991 to 31.12.1991 and was paid his wages and subsequently his services were disengaged as his services were no longer required.

6. On his disengagement, he has approached Dy. Labour Commissioner, Lucknow on 1.08.1999 and his matter was referred for conciliation. The conciliation proceedings had failed and consequently a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate his case and the issues referred was as to whether the retrenchment of Shri. Shiv Nath w.e.f. 01.01.1992 is valid and is in accordance with law and, if not, the compensation including legal dues to which he is entitled.

7. According to the claim filed by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal, it was stated that he was engaged as a Chowkidar/Beldar on temporary basis and worked till 31.12.1991 and he was disengaged w.e.f. 01.01.1992 orally by the Junior Engineer and was not paid any pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation, accordingly he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits in view of the provisions contained in Section 6(N) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as compensation for his illegal termination. In the claim, he has also stated that he worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year and consequently provisions of Section6(N) were complied with and therefore, his retrenchment is illegal and he was liable to be reinstated and paid salary.

8. The said claim was opposed by the petitioner who admitted that he had worked on temporary basis at canal in the Irrigation Division, Unnao and payment was also made to him but submitted that he was not a regular employee and was engaged only when work was available and consequently prayed that his claim may be rejected.

9. The Industrial Tribunal while allowing the claim preferred by the workman had taken into account the fact that the petitioner has admitted that workmen was in their employment and was working in the Irrigation Department from 1987 to 1991 as a daily wages labourer.

10. The workman on the other hand had alleged that he had worked from 15.07.1986 to 31.12.1991 continuously and during this period he was never laid off and his services were illegally terminated on 01.01.1992. He has further stated that Kutti Lal, Rajesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Om Prakah, Chhatrapal and other workmen who were junior to him have been retained by the petitioner while he has been retrenched and accordingly submitted that there was clear violation of provision of Section 6(N) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

11. The workman has also produced a copy of muster roll which indicated that he had worked for 332 days in the year 1991. It is in the aforesaid facts that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that that employees had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination and prior to his termination he was not given notice or wages in lieu of notice and consequently there was violation of principles of provisions of Section 6(N) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has also considered that similarly placed employee, namely, Krishan Pal Yadav had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1440 (SS) of 1999 wherei