JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE EXTENSION Vs. CHHOTE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, Project Officer (Agriculture) under the District Agriculture Officer, District Basti and the Block Development Officer, Farinda, District Maharajganj, as co-petitioners, have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned award dtd. 30/11/2015, published on 28/3/2016, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No.75 of 1999.

(2.) As per the pleadings contained in the writ petition, the respondent Chhote Lal (hereinafter referred to as the "workman") was temporarily engaged in the year 1986-87 under the Rice Scheme as an internal arrangement as Kamdar/Chowkidar and when the Rice Scheme was abolished, the continuity of 96 Kaamdars/Chowkidars was cancelled by the Government Order dtd. 17/10/1987 and, thereafter, the services of the workman were terminated after giving him a notice dtd. 1/8/1988. Thereafter, under the order dtd. 11/5/1999 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur to examine the question as to whether the termination of the workman was proper or legal with effect from 1/9/1988 and, if not, what relief/compensation the workman was entitled to. It is further pleaded that before the Labour Court, the parties made their submissions and led evidence. The case of the petitioners was that the workman had obtained his appointment by committing fraud and when the said fraud had come to the knowledge of the petitioners, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. It is further pleaded that after abolition of Rice Scheme, there was no vacancy and, therefore, the workman had no right of reinstatement. It is further pleaded that the dispute was raised after a long period of 10-11 years from the date of termination and that the respondent had been paid salary upto 31/8/1988 which includes the salary of one month from the date of notice dtd. 1/8/1988. Further case of the petitioners before the Labour Court was, as also pleaded in the writ petition, that the Agricultural Department is a Government Department and not an ''Industry' and therefore the Labour Court had erred in treating the dispute as covered by the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the award is illegal.

(3.) In sum and substance, the case of the petitioners is to the effect that the engagement of the respondent-workman as a labour was under a temporary arrangement for the purposes of working under the Rice Scheme which did not remain operative after 1987 and, therefore, consequential termination of the services of the respondent workman was not illegal.