The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a workman to reinstatement with all service benefits in cases of void ab initio retrenchment, as per the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and relevant case law.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

The State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the validity of Award dated 23.07.2011, rendered by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 183/2009 (Old Adjudication Case No. 36 of 2006).

2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that respondent/workman was engaged as Beldar on 01.02.1988. He was retrenched on 01.01.1991 without following the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act, 1947”) and Rule 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rules, 1957”). Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The workman filed the claim petition. The reply was filed by the employer.

3. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Award was passed in favour of the workman on 23.07.2011. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State of U.P./petitioners has vehemently argued that the respondent/workman had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the appointment of the workman was for a limited period.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Award dated 23.07.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar carefully.

6. The workman had appeared as WW1 before the Labour Court. He has testified that he was retrenched without following the due process of law. He had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year in the petitioner-department.

7. Thus, the Learned Labour Court, Haridwar has rightly drawn adverse inference against the employer. The certificate was also issued in favour of the workman by Assistant Engineer-I certifying therein that the workman had worked from 01.02.1988 to 31.01.1991.

8. The statement of the respondent-workman was not rebutted by the employer.

Rule 12(9) of the Rules, 1957 reads as under :-

“Rule 12(9):-“If the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the union or the workman is not rebutted by the employers, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement.”

9. Since, the workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, hence, the employer was required to issue a notice and pay the compensation under Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 to the workman.

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

11. 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”, relying upon the “Bangalore Water Supply” case 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 o