G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) This is a petition for quashing of the award, dated January 4, 1999, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent No. 2) in reference No. 87 of 1995 and 1052 of 1998.
(2.) The facts which have bearing on the decision of the writ petition are that respondent No. 1 Jai Kishan was engaged as a daily- wage employee under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sudkain Sub-Division (IB), Narwana in July 1989. His services were discontinued at the end of August 1993. By an order passed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), the State Government made a reference to respondent No. 2 for adjudication of the dispute relating to the legality and justification of the action of the employer to discontinue the services of respondent No. 1.
(3.) After considering the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties and hearing their representatives, respondent No. 2 held as under their representatives, respondent No. 2 held as under: (1) That respondent No. 1-workman had actually worked under the employer for a period of more than 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services. (2) The employer had not complied with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the basis of these findings, respondent No. 2 declared the termination of respondent No. 1 as illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: (a) the Irrigation Department of the State does not fall within the term of 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act and, therefore, respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the reference made by the State Government; (b) respondent No. 1 is not covered by the definition of workman and as such the so-called termination of his service cannot be nullified on the ground of violation of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25-F of the Act. We have carefully gone through the record and are of the considered opinion that the impugned award does not suffer from any error of law warranting issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. ;