IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2634 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 13171 of 1997) State of U.P. …..………………Petitioner. Versus The Labour Court and another. ………….Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the petitioner. Mr. Deep Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 29th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.1996 contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition whereby the respondent no. 2 has been directed to be reinstated along with all the back wages and consequences. 2. Respondent no. 2, who was a labour, raised an industrial dispute against his Employer. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication being Adjudication Case No. 101/1992. The reference was to the following effect: “Whether the termination of the services of workman Rajnish Kumar Sharma, S/o Sri Shyam Sundar Sharma from 31.12.1988 by the Employer is justified and legal, if not, to what 2 relief/compensation the concerned employee is entitled to get and along with which description? 3. Both the parties were issued summons, which were served upon them. Employer/State filed a written statement stating therein that Employer Establishment (Investigation & Planning, Quality Control (World Bank) neither comes under the definition of the Industry, nor any transaction regarding the profit and loss is done in the establishment. It was further stated that the workman had been appointed for a period of three months on conditions under Stop Gap Arrangement. He was appointed three times for a period of two months every time and his services were terminated automatically on 23.4.1988 in accordance with the conditions. Further on 25.4.1988 the concerned workman was appointed for appointed for a period of three months and his services were terminated on 24.7.1988. Thereafter, after a period of five months, on his request the respondent no. 2 was appointed on Muster Roll as Typist on daily wage and he worked upto one month, but thereafter, he with his own will left the job. The case of the employer is that the respondent no. 2 workman has not completed 240 days of service. 4. In response to the aforesaid, the workman / respondent no. 2 has stated that he was appointed in the Employer Establishment on 15.7.1987 as Junior Clerk. He has submitted that on 31.12.1988, his services have been terminated and prior to this termination, he has worked 3 approximately one year. The petitioner has stated that the work of the Employer Establishment is on a business pattern. The petitioner has annexed a certificate issued by the department showing that the petitioner has worked for a period from 18.7.1987 to 24.7.1988 along with List 21-B(2) with the signatures of Assistant Engineer. 5. The labour Court after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties, has passed an award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no. 2 with all consequences. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 2 had not worked for 240 days in a Calendar year. 8. So far as the question of completion of 240 days’ service by the respondent no. 2 is concerned, Labour Court has relied upon the Certificate produced by the respondent no. 2, which shows that the respondent no. 2 worked for a period from 18.7.1987 to 24.7.1988. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Employer with any documentary proof. The Labour Court also examined Mr. V.P. Agarwal witness produced by the Employer. When he was asked as to whether Mr. Devendra Singh and Sri Vinod Kumar were working as Junior Clerk after the retrenchment of respondent no.2, the witness answered “he does know”. Further the Labour Court has recorded a finding that there was violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes 4 Act as before terminating the services of the respondent no. 2, petitioner did not serve any notice before one month from the termination upon the respondent no. 2. 9. So far as the question with the regard to the Employer Establishment being not an industry is concerned, the Labour Court has relied upon the judgment of Deshraj and others. Vs. State of Punjab and others FLR 1988 (7) Page 176, where it has been observed that the Irrigation Department is an industry. Thus, the labour Court has recorded a finding that the Employer Establishment comes under the definition of an industry. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the court below as the same has been passed after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties. 11. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 29.7.2008 Rathour