HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1558 of 2013 State Of Uttarakhand and another --Petitioners Versus Satya Singh Bhandari --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. with Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/petitioners.

Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been instituted by the State/petitioners challenging the impugned award dated 05.09.2011 (published on 09.01.2012) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No.370 of 2009 (Old Adjudication No.25 of 2002) Satya Singh Bhandari Vs. Executive Engineer, Manari Bhali Surang Nirman Khand, Shaktipuram, Chinyalisour, District Uttarkashi. By the impugned award, learned Labour Court has held the termination of respondent-workman, Shri Satya Singh Bhandari, to be illegal and unjustified, directing his reinstatement along with service-related benefits from the date of his termination.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman Shri Satya Singh Bhandari, was engaged by the petitioners as a daily wager on the exigencies of work between 01.08.1987 and 30.06.1992. His engagement was casual and dependent upon the availability of work and he was never appointed through any regular process, nor issued any appointment letter or salary slip. According to the respondent-workman, although he worked continuously during the said period, he was allegedly refused work by the petitioners from 01.07.1992, and such refusal amounted to termination without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), particularly Section 6-N of the Act. The State Government, invoking its powers under Section 4-K of the Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication - “Whether the termination of the respondent-workman, Shri Satya Singh Bhandari, was legal and justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?” The petitioners filed their written statement asserting that the respondent-workman was never retrenched, instead, he voluntarily stopped coming to work after 01.07.1992 without making any application for re-engagement. Learned Labour Court, vide award dated 05.09.2011, held the termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement with service-related benefits (excluding back wages). Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed by the State/petitioners challenging the impugned award dated 05.09.2011.

3. Learned State Counsel contended that the “Irrigation Department”, being entrusted with sovereign functions of the State, does not fall within the definition of “Industry” under the Act. He has placed reliance upon authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) vs. B. Somaseetty, 1997 Lab I.C. 2651 wherein, it has been held that daily wagers appointed on project work under the State’s sovereign functions do not acquire any right to the post, and Labour Courts cannot order reinstatement in such circumstances. Thus, the very reference under Section 4-K of the Act was incompetent, and the entire adjudication proceedings stand vitiated.

4. Learned State Counsel argued that the learned Labour Court has wrongly recorded a finding that the workman completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months. He further argued that petitioners have produced year-wise muster rolls, demonstrating conclusively that the workman never worked 240 days in any calendar year. Learned Labour Court ignored these crucial public documents and relied solely on the unsubstantiated oral statement of respondent-workman, rendering the conclusion perverse and contrary to evidence. Learned State Counsel further submitted that it is the petitioners’ categorical case that the respondent-workman was a casual labourer deputed on