The judgment establishes the interpretation of the definition of 'industry' and 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and emphasizes the entitlement of service benefits to employees in case of unjust termination.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The petitioner/employer in the instant writ petition has put a challenge to the award dated 31.10.2011, as it was rendered by the learned Presiding Officer/Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 16 of 2011, Raghuveer Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Uttari Ganga Nahar, Roorkee. The reference of industrial dispute, which was sought therein by invoking the provisions contained under Section 4(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, it was in relation to “as to whether the termination of services of the workman by the employer was justified or not and whether the said termination happen to be in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act to be read with Rule 42 of the Rules framed under the Act, i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules of 1957.”

3. The workman came up with the case that he was inducted as a Beldar, being an unskilled worker with the respondent department on 22.05.1981 and he had continuously worked there in the said capacity till 20.12.1994 i.e. the date from which his services were discontinued.

4. He contended in the reference proceedings that ever since 20.12.1994, the act of the employer of refusing to pay the salary and not permitting to take work from the workman will itself tantamount to be a termination from the services and thus he contended that he would be entitled for the grant of the entire service benefits including the setting aside the order of termination because since he has worked over 240 days in a calendar year, coupled with the fact that there was a non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. The workman had submitted that if the period for which he has rendered his services from his initial date of appointment on 22.05.1981, is taken into consideration as per the muster roll entries, prepared by the petitioner, he has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, hence dispensation of services without compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, would be bad in the eyes of law.

6. Before the Labour Court, as well as even before this Court too, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued, that the entire reference proceedings as against the order of termination would be bad for the reason being that the issue referred to be decided under Section 4K is bad as the petitioner contended that it would not be an “industrial dispute” and the Irrigation Department will not be an “industry” within the definition as provided under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. If the classification of definition of an “industry” and “industrial dispute”, as defined under Section 2(l) is compositively taken into consideration, the various elements which are prescribed to be satisfied therein is that it has had to be an engagement in a business or a trade or the ambit of states of services would be included in the definition of industry in relation to the services rendered to a government organization and who is discharging, duties as of a public functionary. The relevant definition contained under Section 2(k) and 2(l) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, are extracted hereunder:

“(k) ‘Industry’ means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workman.

(l) ‘Industrial Dispute’ means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the term of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning:

(i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company.

(ii) such controlled industry as may be specified