STATE OF U P Vs. SARV JEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioners as a Baildar on daily wage basis. It is claimed by the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 has never been appointed against any post or vacancy and Ins services ended every day at the end of the day. The respondent No. 1 claimed that he has been removed from his services with effect from 1.9.1991. It is claimed that he was engaged as a Baildar since 1980 and has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and without any notice, his services has been terminated by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Gorakhpur. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 12.8.1992 referred the matter being industrial dispute under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the respondent No. 2 for adjudication of the issue namely: Whether the termination of the services of the workman i.e. respondent No. 1 Shri Sarv Jeet by its employer w.e.f. 01.09.1991 is legal and justified? If not, then what relief the labourer/workman is entitled or to get any other relief?

(3.) The said reference was registered as a Adjudication Case No. 493 of 1992 The respondent No. 2 issued notices to both the parties. The respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and alleged that he was engaged as Baildar since 1980 and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and without any notice for retrenchment and compensation, his services have been terminated by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1991. The petitioner also filed an objection/written statement denying the allegations made by the respondent No. 1 and also stated that the respondent No. 1 was simply engaged on daily wage basis for a specific period on the availability of work and funds. When no work was available for him, his engagement came to an end. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 was never terminated from services. It was also pleaded that the petitioner's Department is a Government Department and dogs not come within the meaning of an 'industry', as such the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. are not applicable and hence, respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The respondent No. 2 proceeded to decide the case and passed the impugned award on 06.03.2003, whereby, reinstated the respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages alongwith the continuity of service.