STATE OF U P Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that in 1986 the workman was appointed as a Sinchpal and that his services was terminated on 31.12.1987. In 1992, the dispute was referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination. It transpires that an exparte award dated 20.3.1993 was given in favour of the workman, but, subsequently on an application for recall filed on behalf of the employers, the exparte award was set aside by an order dated 18.3.1994. Pursuant thereto, the employers were allowed to file the written statement.

(3.) The employers, as per their written statement, contended that the workman was employed on exigencies of service on a daily rate basis @ Rs.14/- per day and that he worked intermittently from 1.1.1987 to 31.1.1987, from 1.6.1987 to 4.7.1987 and from 1.8.1987 to 31.12.1987. The employers contended that the workman had never worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, the provisions of Section 6-N was not applicable. The employers further submitted that the Irrigation Department is not an "Industry" as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no industrial dispute could be referred to the Labour Court.