The main legal point established is that the termination of a workman must comply with the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and relevant rules, and that delay in seeking reference does not necessarily bar relief to the workmen.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 31.10.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No. 19 of 2009 (Old No. 83 of 2004), titled as Krishan Pal vs. Sinchai Anushandhan Sansthan, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. A dispute was referred by the Sate for adjudication before Labour Court, Dehradun. Subsequent thereto, the adjudication was transferred to 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 workman by the employer was justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

3. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, vide award dated 31.10.2011 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 Beldar from 29.09.1984 to 17.07.1989. He did his work with full devotion and sincerity. On 18.07.1989, 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?

(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. At internal page no. 6 of the award under challenge, the experience certificate given by Assistant Research Officer of the concerned department has been annexed. It indicates that from 27.09.1984 to 31.01.1985, the workman worked for four months and three days. Thereafter in the next calendar year, he worked for six months and 15 days w.e.f. 01.02.1985 to 15.07.1985.

12. From 01.01.1988 to 15.07.