Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (M/S) No. 1325 of 2007 (Old No. 9823 of 1998) State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Upper Ganga Canal, Modernisation Division-I, World Bank Project, Roorkee, District-Hardwar and another. ………….. Petitioner. Versus Raj Kumar Gupta and another. …………….Respondents. …………………. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/petitioner. None appears for the respondent No. 1. Date: July 24, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned award/order dated 23.06.1995 passed by Labour Court-I, U.P. Meerut, in Adjudication Case No. 340 of 1994, contained as Annexure No. to the writ petition. 2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 26.04.1990 and the Labour Court Dehradun had registered the said dispute as Case No. 73 of 1990. The parties have contested the case before the Labour Court. The petitioner was appointed in the Division of petitioner No. 1 on the post of Tubewell Operator on 09.06.1987 and since then he had been working continuously. On 01.03.1989 he was orally stopped to work by the Executive Engineer/petitioner No.2 In place of respondent No.1 another person was appointed by the Executive Engineer of the Division. The award has been challenged on the ground that the workman had worked on daily wage basis and when the Division-1 has been transferred to Division-VI there has been no work left in the Division-I and the engagement of the workman has rightly been discontinued. 3. I have perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. It has come in the finding of Labour Court that petitioner was engaged as Tubewell Operator on 09.07.1987 in the Irrigation Department. Before his termination the workmen served in the Department more than 240 days. The large Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus A. Rajappa, reported in A.I.R. 1978, S.C., 548 has held that Irrigation Department is an Industry. The services of the petitioner have been terminated violating the provision of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. I find no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Labour court. The impugned order doses not require any interference by this Court. 4. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 24.07.2008 P.Singh