(1.) The appellant questions the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court, in Appeal, allowed the writ petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (SD-I), Athani and set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 27-10-1999 directing reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.
(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : Appellant was appointed as a daily waged earner by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 26-11-1988. He worked up to 20-6-1994, on which day his services were terminated. He was getting salary of Rs.910/- per month. On termination, appellant claimed that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days immediately prior to 20-6-1994 (date of termination) and that his services were wrongly terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 Act"). Consequently, he contended that the above termination constituted illegal retrenchment which was liable to be set aside. The above industrial dispute was referred by the State Government to the labour court vide reference under section 10(1)(c) of the 1947 Act. The reference was in following terms :
(3.) On receipt of the said reference, the labour court issued notices to the concerned parties. The management resisted the reference by filing its counter statement by which the management contended that the appellant was not a worker in terms of section 2(s) of the 1947 Act and consequently, he was not entitled to claim benefit of section 25-F of the said Act. The management also submitted that the "Irrigation department" was not an "industry" under the said 1947 Act and consequently, the question of compliance of section 25-F did not arise. Further, the appellant contended that the reference was time barred.