The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act, 1948, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in cases of retrenchment and abandonment of service.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

The present petition is directed against the award dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No.164 of 2009 (Old Adjudication No.221 of 2004).

2. “Key facts” necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent no.1-workman was engaged on 21.09.1998. He was retrenched without following the due process of law on 01.07.2002. He raised the industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The workman filed the statement of claim. The employer filed the reply.

3. Learned Labour Court announced the award in favour of the workman-respondent no.1 on 29.08.2011. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The workman-respondent no.1 was engaged on 21.09.1998. According to the material placed on record, the workman has worked for 302 days’ from November, 1998 to October, 1999. He appeared before the Labour Court as WW1 and has deposed that he was neither issued any notice nor any compensation was paid to him at the time of retrenchment.

5. The statement made by the workman remained uncontroverted. The workman since had completed more than 240 days’ in a calendar year, hence, he was required to be issued notice and paid compensation, under the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (2013) 16 SCC 16 in the case of “State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Sarva Sghramik Sangh, Gangli and others”, have relied upon “Bangalore Water Supply” case and have held that the activities of the Irrigation Department fall within the ambit of “industry”. Their Lordships have held as under:-

“26. To begin with, we must note that the workmen concerned were engaged as pump operators and chowkidars, etc. on 25 lift irrigation schemes, which were carrying out the process of pumping water. The process of pumping water is specifically covered under the definition of “manufacturing process” under Section 2 (k)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948. Thus, the workmen concerned were engaged in a “manufacturing process”. Once that is established, it follows that the activity of the undertaking in which they were working, constituted a “factory” within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the said Act. Explanation (i) to Section 25-A of the ID Act, 1947, covers “factories” within the definition of an “industrial establishment”, and therefore Chapter V-A of the ID Act, 1947 applies to “manufacturing process” of pumping water. Hence, it cannot be denied that the undertaking in which the workmen concerned were employed was covered under the provisions of the ID Act.

27. It is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that the said undertaking was being run by the Irrigation Department of the first appellant, and the activities of the Irrigation Department could not be considered to be an “industry” within the definition of the concept under Section 2 (j) of the ID Act. As noted earlier, the reconsideration of the wide interpretation of the concept of “industry” in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board is pending before a larger Bench of this Court. However, as of now we will have to follow the interpretation of law presently holding the field as per the approach taken by this Court in State of Orrisa v. Dandasi Sahu, referred to above. The determination of the present pending industrial dispute cannot be kept undecided until the judgment of the larger Bench is received.”

7. The workmen are appointed on daily wages, on muster rolls basis and no appointment letter is issued to them. The terms and conditions of service are determined on the basis of muster-rolls, maintained by the employer.

8. The sum and substance of the plea raised by the employer is that the workman has abandoned the job. There is no material available on record that the workman was ever issued any notice to rejoin his duties, in case, he has abandoned the job. The plea of abandonment is required to be proved like any other fact.

9. Their Lordships o