The central legal point established is the interpretation and application of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically regarding the definition of 'Industry', work duration, and termination procedures.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others:

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 01.02.2011, passed by Presiding Officer/Labour Court, Haridwar (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned Award dated 01.02.2011.

2. A dispute was referred by the Sate of Uttar Pradesh for adjudication before Labour Court, Haridwar, as per the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Labour Court was requested to adjudicate on the following point – whether the termination of the above noted workman by the employer was justified or/and legal? If not, to what relief/benefit the workman is entitled?

3. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, vide award dated 01.02.2011 opined that the termination of the workman by the employer was illegal and the workman is entitled to get the service related benefits after the date of termination. Workman shall be treated in service throughout. However, the workman shall not be entitled to receive any back wages from the date of his termination upto the date of award. The award was answered in the positive. It was ruled that the workman will be entitled to get salary and all other allowances as admissible to him from the date of award. Aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners (employer).

4. The genesis of the reference may be traced from the version of the workman, according to whom, he is an unskilled labour. He worked with the employer as electrician from 01.01.1989 to 31.03.1990. He did his work with full devotion and sincerity. On 01.04.1990, the employer refused to take work from the workman and since then, he is unemployed. No enquiry was pending against him. He had already worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year or in 12 calendar months. According to the workman, the employer had not followed the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’) and Rule 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957.

5. Per contra, the employer, by filing written statement/rejoinder stated that the workman worked as casual labourer on the basis of exigency of work. He was deputed to do work with some contractor in a casual way. It was also averred that the Irrigation Department is not an Industry.

6. Learned Labour Court framed following points of determination for its consideration:-

(i) Whether the Irrigation Department is an ‘Industry’ as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act of 1947 (Section 2(K) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947)?

(ii) Whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a year or in 12 calendar months?

(iii) Whether the employer has adopted the procedure as prescribed under law before terminating the services of the workman?

7. Learned Labour Court, relying upon hosts of decisions, inferred that Irrigation Department is an ‘Industry’ as defined in Section 2(K) of the Act of 1947.

8. This view is fortified by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 16.

9. This Court need not reproduce those decisions for the sake of brevity, for they already formed part of the award under challenge. Suffice will it be to say that this Court upholds the inference drawn by learned Labour Court that Irrigation Department is an Industry.

10. The next point relates to the fact whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year or in 24 calendar months with the employer or not?

11. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has recorded a finding in his award that from the perusal of records, it transpires that whereas the employer filed copies of Muster Rolls for the period before November 1989 and after Decembe