STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated February 10, 2001 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun. FACTS:

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 was appointed on April 1, 1987 as Beldar in the department of petitioner No. 2 and he continued up to January 9,1992, but on January 10, 1992, his services were terminated without any prior notice, which is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 raised the dispute under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Following matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun: " Vernacular matter omitted." The Labour Court after hearing both the parties held that the termination order passed by the petitioner-department is illegal and therefore, directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1, however because of delay in filing the claim petition, the Labour Court moulded the relief and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards back wages to the petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this judgment of the Labour Court, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. After hearing both the parties, following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the finding of the Labour Court with regard to 240 days can be said to be Illegal? (ii) The claim Petition having been filed after a lapse of a period of 7 years, can be rejected as highly belated? (iii) Whether, the Irrigation Department, where the respondent No.1 was working is not within the definition of the Industry? Findings on Point No. i