Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that Irrigation Department falls within the definition of “Industry” under the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in Des Raj etc. Vs State of Punjab and others (1988).

The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the state government of Uttar Pradesh challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly in 2015. The Labour court had held that the termination of the services of a workman as done in 1990 was improper and illegal and the workman was entitled to get the entire due salary.

The government moved the high court basically on the pleas that the Irrigation Department is not an 'Industry' as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka vs K Somasetty and others) (1997).  The government's further submission was that the services of the respondent-workman were purely part-time in nature, which ceased to operate after 1989 and, therefore, the termination was an automatic consequence as per conditions of the services and, hence, there was no illegality in terminating the services of the respondent-workman.

Moreover, the government argued that a reference was made by the respondent-workman at a very belated stage, i.e. after a period of 15- 16 years, therefore also, he is not entitled for any relief.

On the other hand, it was the argument of the respondent workman that the termination of his services was contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947. He alleged that he had worked for more than 240 days and, therefore, was entitled for the reliefs claimed.

The workman's counsel also stressed that the issue as to whether the Department of Irrigation is or is not an Industry so as to attract the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the cases of Des Raj etc. and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa and others (1978).

After analysing the rival contentions, court noted that since the Supreme Court, as well as the high court itself, had held that Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa and others, therefore, no error could be pointed out in adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court and the provisions of UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were fully applicable.

"I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman as in the case of Des Raj v. State of Punjab (supra) the Apex Court had considered the tests laid down in various earlier judgments of the Apex Court itself, culminating in the judgment in Bangalore Water Supply (supra) and thereafter had arrived at a conclusion that the Irrigation Department falls within the definition of Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, " stated the court. 

Court stressed the decision of the labour court was reached only after relying upon the judgments in the case of Des Raj and etc. (supra) and other authorities. Therefore, court held that there was no error in the view taken by the Labour Court in this regard.

Further, court pointed out that the document placed before it by the government so as to explain the nature of services of the respondent-workman did not form part of the record of the proceedings in view of provisions of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, court rejected the second contention raised by the government.

Furthermore, regarding the government's argument that since reference was made after a huge delay of 16 years, therefore, reinstatement with back wages was not proper, court highlighted that the labour court had not ordered reinstatement rather it had only awarded past wages/salary to the workman only.

"the delay of 15-16 years in the present case, is not fatal to the claim of the respondent-workman, who, though claimed reinstatement, but has been denied the same. I do not think that award of the backwages from the year 2005 onwards, would be defeated by the delay, which may be a factor in those cases, where the reinstatement with backwages has been ordered, as there is no question of reinstatement in the present case either under the award or in the absence of challenge by the workman to the award," court opined. 

In view of above court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned award, and accordingly, dismissed the plea moved by the government. 

Case Title: State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P And Another