The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the determination of whether the activities of the Irrigation Department constituted an 'industry' within the definition of the concept under Section 2(j) of the ID Act.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

A challenge has been laid to the Award dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No.354 of 2009 (Old Adjudication No.123 of 2004).

2. “Key facts” necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent no.1-workman was engaged as a daily wager on 13.01.1990. He was retrenched orally on 30.09.1992. The workman-respondent no.1 raised the industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The workman filed the claim petition stating therein that he had worked for more than 240 days and he was retrenched without following the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was neither issued any notice nor paid any compensation in lieu of the notice.

3. The employer-department filed the reply. According to the reply filed by the employer-department, the workman was engaged in a particular project and the same has come to an end. Learned Labour Court made a reference in favour of the workman-respondent no.1. The retrenchment of the workman held void ab initio under Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 42 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. He was ordered to be in service but back wages were denied. Hence, the present petition.

4. The workman-respondent no.1 had placed on record a copy of the muster-roll. He has worked for 233 1/2 days and by adding Sundays and paid holidays, he had completed 240 days.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-workman submits that the employer-department has also issued certificate in favour of the workman, whereby it is certified that the workman-respondent had worked as Tracer w.e.f. January, 1990 to April 1992. The employer has admitted that workman-respondent no.1 has worked for 240 days. The workman was neither issued any notice nor paid any compensation in lieu of the notice. The retrenchment of the workman-respondent no.1 was, thus, in violation of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 42 of the Rules, 1957. The workman was never apprised that his appointment was in a particular project.

6. Ms. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State of U.P./petitioners has also argued that the irrigation department is not an “industry”.

7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (2013) 16 SCC 16 in the case of “State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli 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