M.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State of U.P. challenges an award made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani and published on 20.10.1992. The respondent No. 2 Deep Chandra was engaged as supervisor on daily wages by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Haldwani. He worked on that basis during the years 1982 to 1988 for several periods. He was. however, not engaged from 1.9.1989. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court which has held that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 is unjustified and illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court, therefore, ordered that the respondent No. 2 be reinstated with full back wages. This award is challenged in this writ petition. The contention is that the respondent No. 2 was employed on a daily wage basis and had no right to continue in employment and that the irrigation Department was not an industry and therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri K. M. Sahal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) It is not in dispute that Irrigation Department is a Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and recruitment in the said department is regulated by statutory rules framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The impugned award as well as the counter-affidavit make it clear that the respondent No. 2 was not appointed to any civil post in accordance with such rules and he was engaged only on a day-to-day basis that is why he did not get salary for all 365 days in a year.;