IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 (MS) OF 2007 State of Uttaranchal ………Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ……….Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 14.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the State and Sri D.S. Mehta, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.1.2000 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) in Reference case No. 386 of 1999. 3. The industrial dispute decided by the impugned award was referred in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri Hari Mohan Jakhmola, S/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad Jakhmola by the employers from 31.8.1986 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, to which benefit/compensation the applicant/ workman is entitled and to what extent? 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.1985, the applicant / workman was appointed on the post of Beldar as daily-wager and since then, he is continuously working, but on 31.8.1986, his services were terminated without serving any prior notice and in lieu of the notice, no salary and retrenchment compensation and neither any domestic inquiry was done. 5. On behalf of the Employers a written statement has been filed, wherein it has been admitted that applicant / workman was appointed in the month of July, 1985 to work from time to time, and with his own sweet will, he stopped coming to perform his duties, therefore, there is no occasion to terminate the services of the applicant. It has further been stated that Irrigation Department does not come under the definition of Industry. 6. On the request of the applicant / workman, Employer was directed to present the Muster Roll for the period from 1.6.1985 to 31.8.1986. The Employer shown the original muster roll for the period from June, 1985 to November, 1985 and form January, 1986 to August, 1986 and on the basis of that, presented the description of work done by the workman. 6. After going through the evidence available on record, the court below has recorded a finding that prior to the date of termination of services i.e. 31.8.1986, in 12 Calendar months, the applicant / workman has done continuous work upto 297 days and during this period in each month, the workman / applicant had done work upto 19 to 27 days and therefore, due to working of more than 240 days, the workman / applicant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and he cannot be deprived of the same. A finding has further been recorded that there is no force in the contention of 2 the Employer that the workman / applicant with his own sweetwill left the job in the month of August, 1986. The court below has also relied upon the judgment dated 2.5.1997 given by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jeewan Prasad Vs. Labour Court, Kanpur, where it has been stated that “Abandonment amounts to retrenchment”. The court below has further recorded a finding that Irrigation Department comes under the definition of Industry after relying upon the judgment dated 15.6.1999 given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tungbhadra Board Vs. Sri Yishu (FLR 1999 Vol-83 Page 353) and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (5) Meerut FLR 1999 Vol-83 Page 497). So far as the delay of 13 years is concerned, the court below has relied upon Ajaib Singh Vs. Sir Hind Cooperative marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and another [1999 (82) FLR 137] and has recorded a finding that on the ground of only delay, industrial dispute cannot be rejected, but the effect will only be that back wages may not be given or can be reduced. After recording the said findings, the court below has held that the termination of the services of Sri Hari Mohan Jakhmola from 31.8.1986 is unjustified and illegal and passed a direction for reinstatement of the workman / applicant. So far as the back wages is concerned, the court below has denied to pay the same. Since the Employer has not followed the provisions of Section 6-N, therefore, salary of one month Rs. 467/-, compensation for non-service of notice i.e. Rs. 1,000/- and litigation expenses i.e. Rs. 500/- have been directed to be paid to the applicant / workman. 3 7- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that claim of the respondent no. 2 is highly belated. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had already left the employment on his own. 8. So far as the delay is concerned, the court below has already relied upon the judgment of Ajaib Singh Vs. Sir Hind Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and another [1999 (82) FLR 137], where it has been observed that delay in industrial disputed may be condoned. Further so far as the plea that the respondent no. 2 himself left the employment is concerned, there is no evidence produced by the Employer, whereby it can be established that the respondent no. 2 with his own sweetwill left the job. 9. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the award dated 25.1.2000 passed by the respondent no. 1 and the same is confirmed. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 14.7.2008 Rathour 4