The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'Industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the requirement for reinstatement with consequential benefits in cases of unlawful retrenchment.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

A challenge has been made by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the award dated 11.11.2011 rendered by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No.75 of 2009 (Old Adjudication No.44 of 2007).

2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman was engaged as Beldar from 01.05.1989 to 28.06.1990. He was retrenched on 29.06.1990 without following the provisions of Section 6(N) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957.

3. The workman raised the industrial dispute. A reference was made to the Labour Court. The respondent-workman filed the claim petition stating therein that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year at the time of his retrenchment. The employer filed the written statement. The Award was made in favour of the workman by the Labour Court on 11.11.2011. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh-petitioners has vehemently argued that the workman was not engaged by the Irrigation Department. He had not completed 240 days. The experience certificate dated 03.07.1991 was not issued by the Assistant Engineer.

5. Learned counsel for respondent has supported the Award.

6. The workman had appeared as WW1 and placed strong reliance upon the certificate dated 03.07.1991 issued by the Assistant Engineer, whereby it is specifically certified therein that the workman had worked w.e.f. 01.05.1989 to 28.06.1990. The employer has not placed on record all the copies of the muster rolls w.e.f. 01.05.1989 to 28.06.1990. The Sundays and paid holidays were required to be included while calculating 240 days. No specific evidence has been led by the employer to rebut the evidence led by the workman.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the letter dated 28.07.2010 annexed as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition by the petitioners. The earlier experience certificate dated 03.07.1991 was issued in favour of the workman-respondent. The written statement was filed by the employer. There is no mention of letter dated 28.07.2010 in the written statement. Thus, the plea raised by the employer that the certificate dated 03.07.1991 was not genuine, cannot be accepted.

8. Another contention raised before the learned Labour Court was that the Irrigation Department was not come under the purview of “Industry”. This question has already been adjudicated by this Court in FLR 2004 101 845, in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Prem Dutt Thapliyal and another”, as under:-

“8. So far as the third point is concerned as to whether the Irrigation Department is covered under the definition of the Industry, the matter has already been adjudicated in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another,” by the Uttaranchal High Court by his Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in “Des Raj & others vs. State of Punjab & others” and “Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa’s case”. Relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court are quoted below:

“The Apex Court in “Des Raj & others vs. State of Punjab & others”, after applying the aforesaid text on the nature of activities carried on by the Irrigation Department held that Irrigation Department is an ‘Industry’.

Since the Kalagarh unit is the branch of Irrigation Department, therefore, the same is also an Industry within the definition of ‘Industry’ under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa’s case.”

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh/petitioners has vehemently argued that there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute. However, the fact of the matter is that the employer has not challenged the reference made by the State Government. Mo