1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Pancham vs State Of U.P.Throu.Its ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 August, 2019
(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for further adjournment, this Court finds from a perusal of the order-sheet that the case was lastly heard on merits by this Court on 05.02.2019 on which date learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to show case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to holding Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. to be an Industry and covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter for seven dates continuously adjournments have been sought by the petitioner and on the last date fixed the Court had directed the matter to be listed peremptorily.
(3) This Court is aware of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with regard to Muster Roll and Work Charge employees of the Irrigation Department in Raj Narain Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 473. In the aforesaid case decided on 18.01.1996 a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.140 of 1989 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court directly where the Supreme Court passed several orders of an interim nature directing no further engagement of Muster Roll employees and also directing that in case Muster Roll employees were working for the past three years or more they would not be disengaged. On the basis of such interim order, several Government Orders were issued from time to time to the Executive Engineers of each Division to prepare a seniority list of Muster Roll and Work Charge employees on the basis of their initial date of engagement. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court by directing the State Government to undertake a Regularization exercise for Work Charge employees on the basis of seniority and availability of posts in the regular Class IV Category, and for upgrading all Muster Roll employees to the Work Charge Establishment.
(4) In the case of the petitioner, he has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal of U.P., Lucknow, on 06.11.2012 wherein the Presiding Officer found that although the petitioner could not prove that he was directly engaged in the Establishment of the respondents, since they had not denied the employees' engagement but had only stated that he had left work of his own and had never been terminated, as alleged on 05.05.1992, Presiding Officer concluded that the petitioner may have been working in the employer's Establishment on Daily wages/Muster Roll. However, from the date of his disengagement in 1992 till the date of decision of the Adjudication Case on 06.11.2012, several years had passed and it would not be appropriate to direct reinstatement of the petitioner, Only compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was allowed and in case of non-payment within the period of three months from the date of Award, the petitioner was held entitled to 9% interest on delayed payment alongwith Rs.1000/- as cost.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SCC 1182, (Deshraj Vs. State of Punjab and Another) and has referred to Paragraph no.13 thereof wherein the Supreme Court has considered the functions performed by the Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab and held that the main function of Irrigation Department, when tested on the anvil "dominant nature test" as given in Bangalore Water Supply case reported in AIR 1978 SCC 548, would clearly make it come within the ambit of "Industry".
(6) This Court has perused the judgment, it finds that the same is with regard to Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab and with regard to State of U.P., specifically there is a Division Bench decision in Raj Narain Prasad (supra) which would apply. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts of this case.
(7)This Court does not find any good ground to show interference in the Award as the respondents have not challenged it anywhere till date.
(8) Writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019 PAL
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Sangeeta Chandra