# The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors v. Sri Chhote Lal

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1465
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 18666 of 2017
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-joint-director-agriculture-extension-ors-v-sri-chhote-lal-50121
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947
-
Section
6(4)
,
4K,
6NReinstatement- the case of the petitioners is
to the effect that the engagement of the
respondent-workman as a labour was under a
temporary arrangement for the purposes of
working under the Rice Scheme which did not
remain operative after 1987 and, therefore,
consequential termination of the services of the
respondent workman was not illegal- that
reference was made at a very belated stage of
10-11 years after the termination and there
being no finding by the Labour Court in the
impugned award as to whether the respondent
was or was not gainfully employed during the
intervening period or thereafter, I find that the
reinstatement with 25% back-wages along with
continuity in past service was not justifiedHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, a consolidated and lump sum amount of
compensation could have served the purpose to
console the respondent whose services were
terminated, not only in the light of the
documents but also considering his service book
which describe the nature of his appointment
with all other aspects associated with itconsidering the nature of the interim order
dated 25.05.2017 passed in the present petition,
in pursuance whereof a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
was deposited by the petitioners out of which a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has admittedly been
released in favour of the respondent.(Para 1 to
48)

The writ petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,907 of 45,395. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39907 for what follows._

5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1465
(2023) 5 ILRA 1465
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 18666 of 2017

The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension)
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Chhote Lal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vivek Shandilya, C.S.C., Sri Dhananjai
Singh (S.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, Sri Anil Kumar
Yadav, Sri Sudhanshu Narain

A. Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947
-
Section
6(4)
,
4K,
6NReinstatement- the case of the petitioners is
to the effect that the engagement of the
respondent-workman as a labour was under a
temporary arrangement for the purposes of
working under the Rice Scheme which did not
remain operative after 1987 and, therefore,
consequential termination of the services of the
respondent workman was not illegal- that
reference was made at a very belated stage of
10-11 years after the termination and there
being no finding by the Labour Court in the
impugned award as to whether the respondent
was or was not gainfully employed during the
intervening period or thereafter, I find that the
reinstatement with 25% back-wages along with
continuity in past service was not justifiedHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, a consolidated and lump sum amount of
compensation could have served the purpose to
console the respondent whose services were
terminated, not only in the light of the
documents but also considering his service book
which describe the nature of his appointment
with all other aspects associated with itconsidering the nature of the interim order
dated 25.05.2017 passed in the present petition,
in pursuance whereof a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
was deposited by the petitioners out of which a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has admittedly been
released in favour of the respondent.(Para 1 to
48)

The writ petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. thru Secy Irrigation Vs Mohd Rais
(2021) 169 FLR 520

2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Uttam Singh (2021) AIR
SC 3909

3. Chairman, Town Area & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2013) 11 ADJ 197

4. St. of Karnataka & anr. Vs Ravi Kumar (2009)
13 SCC 746

5. Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank
Vs Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91

6.
Assistant
Engineer,
Rajasthan
State
Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota
Vs Madan Lal (2013) 14 SCC 543

7. Nagar Mahapalika Vs St. of U.P. & ors..
(2006) 5 SCC 127

8. Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs Surinder
Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173

9. Haryana State Electronics Development Corp.
Ltd. Vs Mamni (2006) 9 SCC 434

10. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corp. Vs
M.C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353

11. G.D.A. & anr. Vs Ashok Kumar & anr. (2008)
4 SCC 261

12. Telecom District Manager Vs Keshab Deb,
reported in 2008 (8) SCC 402

13. Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327

14. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs
Laxmi Kant Gupta (2009) 16 SCC 562
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. BSNL Vs Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558

16. Sr. Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic),
Bhopal Vs Santosh Kumar Seal & ors. (2010) 6
SCC 773

17. Assistant Engineer, Raj. Dev. Corp. & anr.
Vs Gitam Singh( 2013) 5 SCC 136

18. State of U.P. Vs P.O., Labour Court & anr.
(2017) 7 ADJ 393

19. Nagar Mahapalika Vs St. of U.P. (2006) AIR
SC 2113

20. Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn Vs
Mamni (2006) AIR SC 2427

21. Sita Ram Vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers
Training Institute (2008) AIR SC 1955

22. Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board & anr. (2009) AIR SC 3004

23. Sr. Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic)
Bhopal Vs Santosh Kumar Seal & ors. ( 2010)
AIR SC 2140

24. Incharge Officer Vs Shankar Shetty (2010) 9
JT SC 262

25. Div. Engr., Telecom, Jhansi Vs P.O. & anr..
(2011) 4 ADJ 199

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

The Challenge

1. The Joint Director Agriculture
(Extension),
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur, Project Officer (Agriculture)
under the District Agriculture Officer,
District Basti and the Block Development
Officer, Farinda, District Maharajganj, as
co-petitioners, have filed the present writ
petition challenging the impugned award
dated 30.11.2015, published on 28.03.2016,
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case
No.75 of 1999.
Writ Petition

2. As per the pleadings contained in
the writ petition, the respondent Chhote Lal
(hereinafter referred to as the "workman")
was temporarily engaged in the year 198687 under the Rice Scheme as an internal
arrangement as Kamdar/Chowkidar and
when the Rice Scheme was abolished, the
continuity of 96 Kaamdars/Chowkidars
was cancelled by the Government Order
dated 17.10.1987 and, thereafter, the
services of the workman were terminated
after giving him a notice dated 01.08.1988.
Thereafter,
under
the
order
dated
11.05.1999 passed by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Gorakhpur, an industrial
dispute was referred to the Labour Court,
U.P., Gorakhpur to examine the question as
to whether the termination of the workman
was proper or legal with effect from
01.09.1988
and,
if
not,
what
relief/compensation the workman was
entitled to. It is further pleaded that before
the Labour Court, the parties made their
submissions and led evidence. The case of
the petitioners was that the workman had
obtained his appointment by committing
fraud and when the said fraud had come to
the knowledge of the petitioners, the
services of the respondent-workman were
terminated. It is further pleaded that after
abolition of Rice Scheme, there was no
vacancy and, therefore, the workman had
no right of reinstatement. It is further
pleaded that the dispute was raised after a
long period of 10-11 years from the date of
termination and that the respondent had
been paid salary upto 31.08.1988 which
includes the salary of one month from the
date of notice dated 01.08.1988. Further
case of the petitioners before the Labour
Court was, as also pleaded in the writ
petition, that the Agricultural Department is
a Government Department and not an
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1467
''Industry' and therefore the Labour Court
had erred in treating the dispute as covered
by the provisions of U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act and, hence, the award is
illegal.

3. In sum and substance, the case of
the petitioners is to the effect that the
engagement of the respondent-workman as
a
labour
was
under
a
temporary
arrangement for the purposes of working
under the Rice Scheme which did not
remain operative after 1987 and, therefore,
consequential termination of the services of
the respondent workman was not illegal.

4. The Labour Court, by the
impugned award dated 30.11.2015, has
directed reinstatement of the respondentworkman on his post with continuity in past
services along with 25% back-wages with
effect from 01.09.1988.

Counter Affidavit

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the respondent-workman
stating that the Agricultural Department
falls within the definition of ''Industry' and
the services of the respondent-workman
were neither temporary nor dependent upon
the Rice Scheme. Reliance has been placed
upon various annexures which also form
part of the writ petition to explain the
nature of the services rendered by the
respondent-workman.

Rejoinder Affidavit

6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed
by the petitioners substantially reiterating the
version contained in the writ petition. It has
also been mentioned that pursuant to the
interim order dated 22.05.2017 passed by this
Court in the present writ petition, an amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited in the account
of Labour Court, Gorakhpur through R.T.J.S.
vide Treasury Token No. 331769925, dated
07.09.2017 and Voucher No.14, dated
08.09.2017.

Interim order passed in this case

7. This Court while entertaining the
present writ petition passed following interim
order dated 22.05.2017:-

"This writ petition has been filed
against the award of the Labour Court,
Gorakhpur dated 30.11.2015 by which the
said Labour Court has answered the
reference in favour of the respondentworkman and granted all relief of his
reinstatement with 25% back wages.

Learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that the respondent-workman had
worked briefly for a period of two years on
the post of Kamdar under Rice Scheme and
that he had been terminated on 01.08.1988.
The workman sought a reference belatedly in
the year 1999 which has been answered in
his favour by the impugned award that was
published on 28.03.2016. He would therefore
submit that the relief of reinstatement in such
a case could not be granted to the
respondent-workman as the reference has
been made after a delay of eleven years
and
also
because
admittedly
the
respondent-workman has remained out of
work for almost 29 years. Therefore, he
would submit the only claim that could
have been considered by the Labour Court
was
of
compensation
in
lieu
of
reinstatement and back wages. However,
the Labour Court has granted the relief of
reinstatement
with
25% back
wages
without even recording the finding that the
respondent-workman
had
not
been
gainfully employed during the pendency of
the dispute.
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned
counsel for the respondent workman on the
other hand would contend that the
respondent is entitled to reinstatement with
25% back wages.

Matter requires consideration.

Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned
counsel for the respondent workman prays
for and is granted four weeks' time to file
counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two
weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 08.08.2017. In the
meanwhile it is provided subject to
deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the
Labour Court, Gorakhpur within a period
of
six
weeks
from
today
the
implementation of the award shall be
remain
stayed.
Of
the
amount
so
deposited, Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid
out to the respondent workman without
any security and the balance amount
shall be invested in an interest bearing
term deposit account of a Nationalized
Bank and shall abide by the final order
passed by this Court."

A later stage during course of
proceedings

8. Later on, in the year 2019,
arguments
were
advanced
for
modification of the interim order praying
release
of
remaining
amount
of
Rs.3,00,000/-
as
the
amount
of
Rs.2,00,000/- directed under the interim
order dated 22.05.2017, was admittedly
paid to the respondent-workman but
remaining amount was lying deposited.
However, this Court, keeping in view
that the matter is ripe for hearing on
merits, made the interim order absolute
by order dated 24.05.2019.

9. I have heard Sri Dhananjai Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for the sole respondent.

Contentions raised by petitioner side

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the
petitioners has mainly raised following
arguments:-

(i) Agricultural Department of the
Government does not fall within the
definition of ''Industry' and, therefore, the
impugned award under the provisions of
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
unsustainable;

(ii) The respondent workman was
temporarily
engaged
under
the
Rice
Scheme of the Government which was
abolished in the year 1987 and, thereafter,
no requirement to keep the respondent in
service remained and, consequently, the
termination of his services is not illegal;
and

(iii) The industrial dispute, even
otherwise, was raised at a very belated
stage of 10-11 years and, therefore, the
direction for reinstatement with 25% backwages along with continuity of past service
is not according to law.

(i) Analysis of first contention

11. In so far as the first contention is
concerned, the submission is that the
Agricultural
Department
being
a
Government Department, the matter could
not be adjudicated upon by the Labour
Court.

12. Meeting this argument, the
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentworkman has vehemently argued that the
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1469
issue as to which establishment would fall
within the definition and meaning of
''Industry' has been explained time and
again by the Supreme Court and keeping in
view the settled proposition of law, even
the Agricultural Department of the U.P.
Government shall fall within the definition
of ''Industry' and, hence, there is no
illegality in the impugned award on this
scope.

13. In support of his submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentworkman has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of State
of U.P. through Secretary Irrigation Vs.
Mohd Rais reported in 2021 (169) FLR
520, with special reference to paragraphs 5,
7, 8, 9, 10 and11.

"5. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party no.1 refuting the
submission advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner has in turn placed reliance
upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR
1988 Supreme Court 1182 to submit that a
Government Department such as the
Irrigation Department has already been
held to come within the purview of term
'Industry' but the subsequent judgment
rendered in the case of K. Soma Setty
(supra) has been passed without noticing
the aforesaid two judgments, which should
therefore prevail. Learned counsel has also
relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen
of American Express International Banking
Corporation vs. Management of American
Express International Banking Corporation
reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 458
to submit that for the purposes of
calculation of 240 days of service,
weekends and other gazetted holidays are
required to be taken into account. Learned
counsel has also relied upon a Full Bench
Decision of this Court rendered in Ganga
Saran vs. Civil Judge, Hapur reported in
AIR 1991 Allahabad 114 to submit that in
case of a conflict between judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of equal
authorities, the concerned High Court must
follow judgment which appears to lay down
the
law
elaborately
and
accurately
irrespective of time line. Learned counsel
also placed reliance on a Single Judge
judgment rendered by High Court of
Bombay in Executive Engineer, Yavantmal
Medium Project Division & Anrs. vs. Anant
S/o Yadao Murate & Another reported in
1997 ILLJ 91 wherein after considering the
contradictory
judgments
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
regarding
Irrigation
Department
being
an
'Industry'
has
followed the judgment rendered in the case
of Des Raj (supra).

...........

7.
As
has
been
indicated
hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Des Raj (supra) has held that an
Irrigation
Department
of
particular
Government to be an Industry in terms of the
Act of 1947. The said judgment has taken into
account various other judgments rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court particularly a
Constitution Bench judgment rendered in
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board vs. A. Rajappa, reported in (1978)2
SCC 213. On the contrary, the subsequent
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of K. Soma Setty (supra) has
not adverted to the aforesaid judgments of
Des Raj (supra) and Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board (supra).

8. Upon perusal of Judgment
rendered in the case of Desh Raj (supra) as
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compared to judgment rendered in the case
of K. Soma Setty (supra), it is apparent that
in the case of Desh Raj (supra) Irrigation
Department has been held to come within
the definition of Industry whereas judgment
of K. Soma Setty holds otherwise. As such,
there is clear conflict in the two judgments
which are of Coordinate Bench.

9.
The
proposition
of
law
required to be followed in conflicting
judgments
rendered
by
Hon'ble
the
Supreme Court by Benches of Coordinate
strength has been discussed in the Full
Bench of this Court in Ganga Saran
(supra). The Full Bench after considering
the relevant aspect has held as follows:

" 7. One line of decision is that if
there is a conflict in two Supreme Court
decisions, the decision which is later in
point of time would be binding on the High
Courts. The second line of decisions is that
in case there is a conflict between the
judgments of Supreme Court consisting of
equal authorities, incidence of time is not a
relevant factor and the High Court must
follow the judgment which appears it to lay
down law elaborately and accurately.

8. Similar situation arose before
a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of M/s Indo Swiss Time
Limited, Dundahera, vs. Umrao, AIR 1981
Punj & Har 213. What the Full Bench in
the said case held is extracted below (at pp.
219-220 of AIR) :

Now the contention that the latest
judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is to be
mechanically followed and must have preeminence
irrespective
of
any
other
consideration does not commend itself to
me. When judgments of the superior Court
are of co-equal Benches and therefore, of
matching authority then their weight
inevitably must be considered by the
rationale and the logic thereof and not by
the mere fortutious circumstances of the
time and date on which they were rendered.
It is manifest that when two directly
conflicting judgments of the superior Court
and of equal authority are extant then both
of them cannot be binding on the courts
below. Inevitably a choice, though a
difficult one, has to be made in such a
situation. On principle it appears to me
that the High Court must follow the
judgment which appears to it to lay down
the law more elaborately and accurately.
The mere incidence of time whether the
judgments of coequal Benches of the
Superior Court are earlier later is a
consideration which appears to me as
hardly relevant."

This decision was followed by the
Bombay High Court in the case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer vs. Municipal
Corporation, AIR 1988 Bombay 9. The
majority of Judges in the Full Bench held
that if there was a conflict between the two
decisions of equal benches which cannot
possibly reconcile, the courts must follow
the judgment which appear to them to state
the law accurately and elaborately. We are
in respectful agreement with the view
expressed by the Full Bench of Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of M/s
Indo Swiss Time Limited v. Umrao, (AIR
1981 Punj & Har 213) (Supra) especially
when the Supreme Court while deciding
Qamaruddin's case (1990 All WC 308)
(Supra) did not notice the U.P. amendment
to S.115, C.P.C. and earlier decision of the
Supreme Court."

10. The aforesaid aspect has also
been dealt with by a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Bombay in which
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1471
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Des Raj (supra) has
been followed:

"13. On considering all the
concepts of industry and after reviewing
the various tests which need not be
repeated, as the tests were laid down in
Bangalore Water Supply case (supra). The
concept of sovereign and regal function
was explained in Chief Conservator of
Forests (supra). The Apex Court in para 13
specifically rejected an argument that
welfare
activities
partake
sovereign
functions on the ground that if such a view
was taken it would be eroding the view
taken by it in Bangalore Water Supply's
case.
While
observing
that
welfare
activities partake sovereign functions the
Apex Court did not notice this in SubDivisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and
Other (supra). Therefore, considering the
various precedents of the Apex Court itself
it is clear that the law declared by the Apex
Court is that welfare activities do not
necessarily partake sovereign functions. In
Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka the
reliance was placed on the judgment in the
case of Union of India v. Jai Narain Singh
(supra). In Union of India v. Jai Narain
Singh, the Apex Court has merely noted
that the Central Ground Water Board is not
an Industry. It is not possible to discern
from that judgment as to what were the
reasons for the Apex Court to so hold. The
other judgment relied on is that of State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Varma
& Anr. (supra). On a perusal of the fact
and the law laid down it does not seem that
the issue as to whether a particular
department was an industry or not was in
issue. What was in issue was whether the
work charged employees who perform duty
of transitory nature were appointed to
posts and their appointments were on daily
wage basis in an appointment to a post.
The Apex Court therein noted that such
appointments were not appointments to the
posts and, therefore, no directions could
have been given to re-engage them in any
work or appoint them against existing
vacancies. Thus the two judgments relied
upon by the Apex Court to arrive at the
conclusion
arrived
at
in
Executive
Engineer, State of Karnataka (supra),
nowhere have laid down the tests to hold as
to why Irrigation Department is to be
excluded from the definition of industry. As
pointed out earlier, even the case of Sub
Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and
Others was considered by the Apex Court
in Physical Research Laboratory and
explained the same in paragraph 10 of the
judgment. After that, it proceeded to apply
the tests as laid down in Bangalore Water
Supply. 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. I am, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the view laid down
in Des Raj's case is the better in point of
law and hence it is the view in Des Raj's
case which will have to be followed. Once
it is so held and as I have already set out
earlier
the
work
of
the
Irrigation
Department of the State of Punjab and the
material placed before this Court including
the written submissions filed on behalf of
the petitioners show that the projects
undertaken by the irrigation department of
the State of Maharashtra is discharging the
same or similar functions as the Irrigation
Department of the State of Punjab. It,
therefore, follows that the projects of the
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Irrigation Department or work connected
with that of the State of Maharashtra, on
the same tests as applied by the Apex Court
in Des Raj's case would fall within the
definition of an industry for the purpose of
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act."

11. Upon applicability of said
factors to the present case, it is clear that
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Des Raj (supra) has
elaborately dealt with the question as to
whether Irrigation Department of the
Government
would
come
within
the
definition
of
Industry
or
not.
After
considering
the
Constitution
Bench
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reached a definite
conclusion that Irrigation Department of
the Government would come within the
definition of Industry."

14. He has further placed reliance
upon the judgment of Supreme Court dated
03.08.2021 in the case of The State of
Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Uttam
Singh, reported in AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 3909, with reference to paragraphs
10 and 11, which are quoted herein below:-

"10. We have also taken note of
the fact that during his 13 long years of
employment and before that having battled
the appellants for the period of 6 years to
get his dues, the father of the respondent
was also transferred from one department
to the other, normally an aspect which
would be associated with a person who had
a regular employment. The most significant
aspect is that had the father of the
respondent not been considered a regular
appointee, there would be no occasion for
the Department to volunteer his services to
the State Election Commission to perform
election duties, which could have been
done only by a Government employee, as is
specified
under
Section
159
of
the
Representation of the People Act, 1950
("Staff of certain authorities to be made
available for election work").

11. The present case is thus one
which is peculiar in its given factual
scenario which we have discussed above
and thus for all practical purposes, it is a
case of an appointment against a regular
vacancy. The respondent's father was
treated as a regular employee by the
aforesaid conduct of the appellants even
though he was labelled as a Part Time
tubewell operator."

15. He has further placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Chairman, Town Area & another Vs.
State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013
(11) ADJ 197, with special reference to
paragraph 14, which is quoted herein
below:-

"14. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that in respect of
true meaning and import of the expression
'Industry' defined under Industrial Disputes
Act, the correctness of decision of Apex
Court rendered in Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa &
others, AIR 1978 S.C. 548 has been
doubted by Apex Court in Coir Board,
Ernakulam, Cochin and Another Vs. Indira
Devi P.S. and others, (1998) 3 S.C.C. 259
and further in case of State of U.P. Vs. Jai
Bir Singh (2005) 5 S.C.C. Page 1 and
decision of the Apex Court rendered in
Bangalore Water Supply case has been
referred to the larger Bench, also does not
make any difference for the reason that the
learned counsel for the petitioner could not
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1473
point out the final decision rendered by
larger Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court
in
respect
of
the
aforesaid
references, therefore, I have no hesitation
to hold that earlier view taken by the Apex
Court is still good law and cannot be held
to be detracted by Apex Court itself by now.
Accordingly, no different opinion can be
given by this court in this regard."

16. While explaining the ratio laid
down in the aforesaid authorities, learned
counsel for the respondent-workman has
referred to an order dated 20.08.1987
forming part of annexure no.4 to the writ
petition
whereby
the
respondentworkman was transferred from Basti to
Goraknpur with a recital in the transfer
order that the services would be governed
by the same Rules which were applicable
for Class-IV employees. Further reliance
has been placed upon the documents of
joining at the transferred place and also to
the appointment order dated 20.05.1987
whereby the respondent was directed to
be appointed though in the temporary
capacity in the pay scale of 315-6-35/Da
Ro-6-363-7-384-8-400 Da. Re10-9-440
with a clear recital that admissible
allowances shall also be payable to the
respondent-workman. He has also placed
reliance upon the letter dated 14.07.1988
sent by the Project Officer (Agriculture),
Basti to the Joint Director Agriculture
(Extension),
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur whereby factum of absorption
of the respondent-workman was admitted
to the petitioners themselves. He has also
referred to the relieving letter dated
10.09.1987 forming part of counter
affidavit
whereby
the
respondentworkman was relieved from Basti to
Gorakhpur
and
also
various
other
documents
to
establish
that
the
respondent workman was always treated
as a regular employee/ workman in the
petitioner department.

17. The submission of the learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-workman,
therefore, is that once the Supreme Court as
well as this Court has already held in the
aforesaid
authorities
that
Irrigation
Department and also the departments of the
like nature depending upon the services
rendered by the said departments, shall be
covered by definition of ''Industry' and,
further, once the respondent was treated as
an
employee
in
the
petitioners
establishment, no error can be pointed out
in adjudication of the dispute by the Labour
Court and the provisions of U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 were fully applicable.

18. 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. It was held
that the view taken down in Des Raj's case
was the better in point of law and hence it
is the view in Des Raj's case which was
directed to be followed. Once it was so held
and also that the work of the Irrigation
Department of the State of Punjab and the
material placed before the Surpeme Court
including the written submissions filed on
behalf of the concerned petitioners that the
irrigation department of the State of
Maharashtra was discharging the same or
similar
functions
as
the
Irrigation
Department of the State of Punjab, it was
held that the projects of the Irrigation
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department or work connected with that of
the State of Maharashtra, on the same tests
as applied by the Apex Court in Des Raj's
case would fall within the definition of an
industry for the purpose of Section 2(j) of
the I.D. Act.

19. In view of the above, the first
contention of the petitioners that the
Agricultural Department of the U.P. does
not fall within the definition of ''Industry'
does not have any merit and is accordingly
rejected.

(ii) Analysis of second contention

20. In so far as the second contention
to the effect that the respondent was
temporarily
engaged
under
the
Rice
Scheme which was abolished in the year
1987 under the Government Order dated
17.10.1987 and, therefore, the direction of
the
Labour
Court
to
reinstate
the
respondent workman with continuity in
service along with 25% back-wages is
unsustainable, this Court finds from the
above
noted
discussion
of
various
documents relating to the services of the
respondent that it cannot be treated that
merely because the Rice Scheme was
abolished, the respondent would loose his
status as that of ''a workman'. The reason is
that the Agricultural Department may
deploy any labour to serve any purpose of
the department and even if it is accepted
that the respondent was working under the
Rice Scheme of the Government, merely
because the Scheme was over, it would not
mean that keeping in view the nature of the
services of the respondent, he would cease
to be a workman, particularly when he was
appointed under a pay scale and was
transferred from one place to the other and
was also held entitled to get various
allowances under the orders of the
petitioners-department itself.

21. In view of the above, the notice of
termination dated 01.08.1988 whereby the
respondent workman was informed that
there was no necessity of his service any
more, is found to be unsustainable. Hence,
the second point raised by the petitioners
that the respondent would not be treated as
a retrenched workman, does not have any
merit and is accordingly rejected.

(iii) Analysis of third contention

22. In so far as the third contention
of the petitioners to the effect that the
industrial dispute was raised after a belated
stage of 10-11 years in the year 1999
whereas the services of the respondent
workman were terminated in the year 1988
and therefore relief of reinstatement with
continuity in past service along with 25%
back-wages is not according to law, this
Court proceeds to examine this aspect of
the matter in the light of law laid down by
this Court and Supreme Court governing
the issue.

23. There is no dispute about the fact
that the petitioner worked from 1987 to
1988 and his services for any reason
whatsoever, were terminated in AugustSeptember, 1988 and the dispute was
agitated after 11 years.

24. Learned Standing Counsel for the
petitioners has argued that the Labour
Court, in the impugned award, has not
recorded any finding that the respondent
workman was not gainfully employed
during the aforesaid period of 11 years and,
therefore, direction for reinstatement with
other relief, is contrary to law.
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1475

25. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondent workman submits that once
the termination was illegal, the award of
the Labour Court is perfectly in accordance
with law.

26. Before arriving at a conclusion in
this regard, it is necessary to refer to certain
authorities of the Supreme Court on the
issue as to when reinstatement with other
consequential reliefs can be ordered by a
Labour Court in such circumstances.

27. In State of Karnataka and
another Vs. Ravi Kumar reported in 2009
13 SCC 746, long delay in seeking
reference of the dispute rendered the
reference stale and Supreme Court held that
it should have been rejected by the Labour
Court. In that case reference was sought
after fourteen years.

28. In Haryana State Cooperation
Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam
reported in 2005 (5) SCC 91, the Supreme
Court held delay of seven years in
approaching the Labour Court to be
relevant
factor
to
refuse
relief
of
reinstatement.

29. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs.
Bhurumal reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177, it
has been held that relief of reinstatement
with full back-wages, when termination is
found to be illegal is not to be granted
mechanically in all cases. In case of
termination of a daily wage worker, made
in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
it
was
held
reinstatement with back-wages was not
automatic and instead workman should be
given monetary compensation.

30. The Supreme Court in the case of
Assistant
Engineer,
Rajasthan
State
Agriculture
Marketing
Board,
Sub
Division, Kota Vs, Madan Lal reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 543, after considering the
law on the subject, held that though
Limitation Act is not applicable to such
cases, yet delay in raising the dispute is an
important circumstance and Labour Court
must consider before it exercises discretion
irrespective of objection has or has not
been raised by the other side.

31. Further in the case of Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota
Versus Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14
SCC 543 in similar circumstances, a muster
roll
employee
in
a
government
establishment who had been found to have
worked for 286 days in one twelve calendar
month period prior to his dis-engagement,
and in whose case the industrial dispute
was raised after six years, was found not
entitled to reinstatement but compensation
in lieu thereof, Rs. One lac only.

32. In Nagar Mahapalika vs. State of
U.P. and Ors. reported in 2006,(5) SCC
127, it was held by Supreme Court that non
compliance with the provisions of Section
6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (this provision is broadly pari materia
with Section 25-F), although, leads to the
grant of a relief of reinstatement with full
back wages and continuity of service in
favour of the workman, the same would not
mean that such relief is to be granted
automatically or as a matter of course. It
was emphasised that the Labour Court must
take into consideration the relevant facts
for exercise of its discretion in granting the
relief.

33. Supreme Court in Municipal
Council, Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar
reported in 2006 (5) SCC 173, reiterated
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the above legal position. That was a case
where the Labour Court had granted
reinstatement in service with full back
wages to the workman as statutory
provisions were not followed. The award
was not interfered with by the High Court.
However, the Court granted monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

34. In Haryana State Electronics
Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni
reported in 2006 (9) SCC 434 following
Nagar Mahapalika (supra), Supreme Court
held that the reinstatement granted to the
workman because there was violation of
Section 25F, was not justified and modified
the order of reinstatement by directing that
the workman shall be compensated by
payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- instead of
the order of the reinstatement.

35.

In
Uttaranchal
Forest
Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi
reported in 2007 (9) SCC 353, the services
were
terminated
on
24.11.1991
in
contravention of the provisions of Section
6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He
had completed 240 days of continuous
work in a period of twelve months
preceding the order of termination. The
workman approached the Conciliation
Officer on or about 02.09.1996, i.e., after a
period of about five years. The Labour
Court granted to the workman, M.C.Joshi,
relief of reinstatement with 50% back
wages. In the writ petition filed by the
Corporation, the direction of reinstatement
was maintained but back wages were
reduced from 50% to 25%. The Supreme
Court
substituted
the
award
of
reinstatement by compensation for a sum of
Rs.75,000/-.

36. In Ghaziabad Development
Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar
and Another reported in 2008 (4) SCC
261], the Apex Court was concerned with
the question as to whether the Labour Court
was
justified
in
awarding
relief
of
reinstatement in favour of the workman
who had worked as daily wager for two
years. His termination was held to be
violative of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
The Supreme Court held that the Labour
Court
should
not
have
directed
reinstatement of the workman in service
and substituted the order of reinstatement
by awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/-

37. In Telecom District Manager v.
Keshab Deb, reported in 2008 (8) SCC
402, the termination of the workman who
was a daily wager, was held illegal on
diverse grounds including violation of the
provisions of Section 25-F. Supreme Court
held that even in a case where order of
termination was illegal, automatic direction
for reinstatement with full back wages was
not contemplated. The Court substituted the
order of reinstatement by an award of
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

38. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board reported in
2009 (15) SCC 327, the workman had
worked from 01.09.1995 to 18.07.1996 as a
daily wager and was granted compensation
of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with
back wages.

39. It is also necessary to refer to
subsequent three decisions of Supreme
Court,
namely,
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Electricity Board vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta
reported in 2009 (16) SCC 562, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Man Singh
reported in 2012 (1) SCC 558 and Senior
Superintendent
Telegraph
(Traffic),
Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and
Others, reported in 2010 (6) SCC 773,
5 All. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) & Ors. Vs. Sri Chhote Lal
1477
where the view has been taken in line with
the cases discussed above. As a matter of
fact in Santosh Kumar Seal (supra), Apex
Court
awarded
compensation
of
Rs.40,000/-to each of the workmen who
were illegally retrenched as they were
engaged as daily wagers about 25 years
back and worked hardly for two or three
years. It was held that the relief of
reinstatement cannot be said to be justified
and
instead
granted
monetary
compensation.

40. In the case of Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation and
Anr. v.