AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Respondent no. 2 was engaged as Daily Wager in Upper Ganga Canal, Modernization Division of Irrigation Department at Roorkee, however, his services were terminated. Respondent no. 2 raised an industrial dispute against termination of his services, which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Haridwar and, accordingly, Adjudication Case No. 49 of 2009 was registered.
It is the case of the petitioner that in the written statement filed on his behalf, it was pleaded that Irrigation Department of the State Government is not an industry and reliance was also placed upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) Vs. K. Somasetty & others, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 434 and various other judgments.
Learned Labour Court has noted the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Irrigation Department is not an industry, however, the objection regarding maintainability of the industrial dispute has not been dealt with by learned Labour Court in the impugned award. By the impugned award dated 13.12.2010, learned Labour Court has held that termination of services of respondent no. 2 is in violation of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and declared the termination to be unjust and illegal and provided that respondent no. 2 shall be entitled to all benefits, including back-wages, from the date of award.
In the humble opinion of this Court, the award rendered by learned Labour Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as Irrigation Department is not an industry, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) Vs. K. Somasetty & others (supra).
In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 13.12.2010 is quashed.