IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 (MS) OF 2001 (Old No. 2755/2000) 1. State of U.P., through Director, Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Research Officer, Hydraulic Division-I, Roorkee (Haridwar). 3. Assistant Research Officer, IIIrd H-I, Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. ………….Petitioners. Versus 1. Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun. 2. Raghunath Singh, S/o Sri Bhagirath, through Sri Praveen Kumar Bharadwaj, 39 Gandhi Nagar, Meerut. …………….Respondents. Dated: 26.04.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 17.11.1998 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Briefly stated, the respondent no. 2 was as a daily wager. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 who was admittedly a daily wager and was provided the role for a specified number of days on account of the exigency of the work in the establishment w.e.f. 20th June, 1987, he did not turn up and again in the year, 1989 he worked only for 36 days. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 20.06.1987. Thereafter, after ten years, the respondent no. 2 raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which was registered as Case No. 222 of 1998. The Labour Court vide award dated 17.11.1998 reinstated the respondent no. 2. The State has challenged the said award on the ground that the irrigation department is not an industry. Court below has recorded a finding to the following effect:- “oknh Jfed us lwph fn0 16&11&98 esa vafdr 14 dkxt nkf[ky fd, ftuesas ls tuojh 1987 ls twu 87 rd ds eLVjjksyksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka izeq[k gSa tks lsok;kstdksa }kjk gh izekf.kr gSa rFkk lsok;kstdksa }kjk fn;k x;k gh ,d izek.k Ik= gS ftlesa oknh Jfed dks pkj o"kZ ls dk;Zjr fn[kk;k x;k gSA lsok;kstdksa }kjk tks dk;Z fnolksa dk fooj.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlds vuqlkj o"kZ 1986 esa Qjojh o ekpZ] vxLr o flrEcj rFkk uoEcj o fnlEcj rFkk 1987 esa twu 1987 rd] ekpZ ekg esa dke ugha fd;k ij bl vof/k esa ’ks"k eghuksa esa lS’ks’ku vkQ odZ ds fy, og mRrjnk;h ugha Fkk vkSj lsok;kstdksa }kjk iSnk fd, x, ,sls O;o/kku dks vizkd`frd ekuk tk,xkA vr% ;g ekuk tk,xk fd oknh Jfed us 240 fnuksa ls vf/kd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk o mls m0iz0 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vf/kdkj@ykHk mn~Hkwr gks x, Fks ftuls mldks oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA” A perusal of the findings shows that there was sufficient material to show that the respondent no. 2 has worked for more than 240 days. So far as the delay is concerned, the labour Court has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards lumpsome amount and has rightly too granted the backwages. I find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court so as to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 26.04.2006 Rathour