A.P. Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the award of the labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Nati Imli. Varanasi in adjudication case No 209 of 1993. The dispute was referred by the Government order dated '7-10-1983 to the said Labour Court as to whether the termination of service of petitioner Ramesh Chandra Gupta from the post of conductor by order dated 2-5-1979 w e.f 3-1-1979 was proper and valid and if not as to what relief the petitioner was entitled to get with other benefits. The Labour Court refused to decide the matter on the finding that, the petitioner was net a workman because he had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year. This approach of the Labour Court is legally untenable as it against the express provisions of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. The definition of workman in the said Act has been given in Section 2 (z) which provides that any person employed in any industrial establishments to do any skilled or non-skilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward whether terms of employment be expressed or implied as a workman. A workman is required to show that he had worked for 240 days or more continuously in a year in the employment of the employer only for the purpose of seeking the protection of Section 6-N of the Act and not for showing that he is a workman In the present case the Labour Court has failed to decide the dispute referred to it by the Government on a misconceived ground that petitioner was not a workman. From the facts which were before the Labour Court it is fully established that petitioner was a workman as per the term defined in Section 2 (z) of the Act and his case was cognisable by the Labour Court which on receiving the reference from the State Government was under legal obligation to decide the industrial dispute referred to it. The learned counsel for the respondent was very fair in conceding that petitioner who was in the employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was a workman and the Labour Court should have decided the dispute which was preferred to it by the State Government ]n my opinion it is-a ease of non-exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court which under law it was under duty to exercise.
(2.) In view of the above discussion, the award dated 31-5-1986 (Annexure XI to the writ petition) is quashed and case is sent back to the Labour Court for a decision on merits The Labour Court shall decide the case within the periods of six months from the date of service of the certified copy of this order on it.
(3.) With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner is entitled to the costs. Writ petition allowed.;