HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 11036 of 2021 State of U.P. and two others …..Petitioner(s) Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jamal Ahmad Khan Court No. - 36 HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners-State and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent. 2. Petitioners before this Court are Irrigation Department of State of U.P. and are aggrieved by impugned award dated 29.07.2020 whereby a reference of industrial dispute that, whether contesting-respondent’s services from the post of Chowkidar was legally terminated on 01.01.1993 or not, was allowed to the extent that it was held that contesting-respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a year, therefore, his services were wrongly 2 Writ C No. 11036 of 2021 terminated and it was directed for reinstatement with full back wages. Relevant part of award is reproduced hereinafter: “21. यह निरन्तर से वा का अधिनियम 1947 का र 2(जी) म इसे तरह परिरभानित निकाय गय ह निका निरन्तर से वा का तत्पय अबाधित से वा जिजीसेम वाह से वा भा सेम्मि!मलि#त ह, जिजीसे अवाधि म कामकार बामर$ अधिका% त अवाकाश दुर्घट, हड़त#, जी+ गर का, ह+, त#बा-दी य काय ह+ जिजीसेम कामकार का का+ई दी+ ह+ तथा 12 का # ण्डर ( मह का अवाधि) म 240 दिदी से काम काय उसे उद्यो+ग म निकाय ह+, परिरस्थि7थाधितय म भा कामकार का+ एका वा का निरन्तर से वा म म जीय ग। वा छँ;ट का दूसेर$ शत जी+ र 6 ए (बा) म उल्लि>#खि@त ह, का अAसेर कामकार का+ छँ-ट का सेमय छँ-ट मAआवाजी भाAगत कार दिदीय गय ह+। यह छँ-ट मAआवाजी प्रत्य का प,र्ण वा का से वा का 15 दिदी का औसेत वा त ह+ग य हर 6 (छँह) मह से अधिका ह+ पर का+ई भा भाग/ र (से) का अन्तगत रज्य सेरकार का+ निरिरत प्ररूप पर एका +निटसे प्र नित का गय ह। र 6 ए का अन्तगत यदिदी छँ-ट एका सेमझौIत का अन्तगत का गय ह+ तथा जिजीसेम छँ-ट का निखिJत धितधिथा का उ># @ ह+ त+ +निटसे य +निटसे का एवाजी म वा त का आवाश्यकात हL ह+त ह। # निका छँ-ट मAआवाजी निMर भा दी य ह। प्रश्गत प्रकारर्ण से वादी तथा प्रधितवादी निवाभाग का मध्य ऐसे का+ई सेमझौIत हL था जिजीसेम एका निखिJत अवाधि का बादी वादी का से वाय सेमप्त ह+ का का+ई शत दी गय ह+। वादी इसे काय7था# ( निपहट 7ट+र आगर) म चौIकादीर का तIर पर कायरत था। वाह वा 1997 म आगर क्षे त्र म 7थाय तIर पर 7थानिपत कार दिदीय गय। पAगठ म भा# ह चौ!बा# हर परिरय+जी पAगदिठत कार #का, प निवाभाग म सेमय+जिजीत कार दिदीय गय ह+ # निका वादी का+ 6 ए का वानिका व्यवा7था से से वा से छँ-ट हL का गय तथा 6 ए का प्रवा का उ>#-र्घ निकाय गय। वादी दिदी० 31.12.1992 तका निरन्तर से वा कार का दीवा निकाय ह जी+ निवाभागय अलिभा# @ से सेनिबात ह+त ह, क्यनिका 1997 तका निपहट 7ट+र आगर म काय था। प्रधितवादी दिदी० 31.12.1992 का बादी निपहट 7ट+र आगर म निकासे चौIकादीर का+ काय पर र@ य हL र@ का का+ई भा काथा त+ अप प्रत्यAत्तर म प्र7तAत निकाय और ह का+ई अलिभा# @ प्र7तAत निकाय जी+ कापAर से आगर का वासे%जिजीत काय#य म भा जी दिदीय गय था । इसे प्रकार वादी का से वाए; अAधिचौत रूप से सेमप्त कार छँ-ट का गय। 22. अतY पत्रवा# पर उप#ब् तथ्य, सेक्ष्य एवा- निवावा चौ का आर पर म] इसे निष्का पर पहुं-चौत हूँ; निका रज्य सेरकार द्वार भा जी गय सेन्दीभादी श निका ' क्य से वाय+जीका द्वार अप श्रधिमका श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह पAत्र श्र ऊदी# सिंसेdह, चौIकादीर का से वाय दिदी-का 01.01.1993 से सेमप्त निकाय जी उधिचौत/तथा/ अथावा वानिका ह]? यदिदी हL, त+ से!बान्धिन्त श्रधिमका क्य #भा/ रिर#M प का अधिकार$ ह] तथा अन्य निकासे निवावारर्ण सेनिहत?" का से!बान् म श्रधिमका श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह पAत्र श्र ऊदी# सिंसेdह का से वाय दिदी-का 01.01.1993 से का गय से वा सेमम्मिप्त अAधिचौत एवा- अवानिका ह]। प्रधितवादी से वाय+जीका श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह का+ से वा का तरत!यत का सेथा उसे पदी पर पA7थानिपत/ बाह# कार तथा से वा सेमम्मिप्त का धितधिथा 01.01.1993 से से वाय+जीका निवाभाग म सेमय- सेमय पर दी य न्य,तम वा तम दीर से बा कार$ अवाधि का प,र्ण वा त का भा भाAगत वादी श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह का+ कार सेAनिखिJत कार। वादी श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह से वा अवाधि का अन्य निहत#भा प का अधिकार$ ह जी+ वाह से वा म रहत हुंए पत। से वाय+जीका पक्षे वादी का+ अधिनिर्णय प्रकाश का दिदी-का से दी+ मह का अन्दीर सेम7त रलिश भाAगत कार सेAनिखिJत कार। ऐसे कार का दीश म वादी श्रधिमका श्र अ का प# सिंसेdह दी य रलिशय पर 10 प्रधितशत ब्यजी वा7तनिवाका भाAगत का धितधिथा तका प का अधिकार$ ह+ग।" 3 Writ C No. 11036 of 2021 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that this Court has passed following interim order on 14.06.2021, which has been complied with: “Submission is that the second respondent had worked for a short period and is not in employment since 1992. Contention is that in such circumstances, even if, a finding of non-compliance of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was returned by the Labour Court, yet only lump sum compensation ought to have been awarded. Matter requires consideration. Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken by registered/speed post, within a week. The respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the award dated 29.7.2020 shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1 lac with the Labour Court concerned, within four weeks from today. On such deposit, Rs.25,000/- would be released to the second respondent without furnishing any security and the remaining amount would be invested in a fixed term interest bearing account in some Nationalized Bank.” 4. He further submits that according to case of contesting- respondent, he has worked from 1986 to 1992 and after more than six years an industrial dispute was referred and without considering that contesting-respondent was failed to discharge his initial burden to prove that he has worked continuously and atleast 240 days in a year, a finding was returned that contesting-respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a year. 5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that a direction for full back wages upon reinstatement is contrary to various judgments passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court that an order of reinstatement would not automatically accompanied with a direction of payment of full back wages specifically when there is no finding that contesting-respondent was not gainfully employed 4 Writ C No. 11036 of 2021 between the period when proceedings were pending before Labour Court, i.e., from 1998 to 2020. 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for contesting- respondent has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Supreme Court in M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015)4 SCC 270; Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, (2015)4 SCC 458; State of U.P. vs. Charan Singh, (2015)8 SCC 150 and this Court’s judgment in State of U.P. Thru Its Prbhagiya Nidesak, Samajit Vaniki vs. Ram Pradesh and another, 2013:AHC:72477 that even a workman on muter roll if worked for 240 days in a calendar year, retrenchment without complying provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be illegal. According to learned counsel, contesting-respondent has still left with 2-3 years to work before he would cross age of superannuation. 7. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 8. In the present case, contesting-respondent has only made an oral statement that he has continuously worked from 1986 to 1992 as well as that for more than 240 days in a year. However, his oral submission was not supported by any documentary evidence. Petitioner has brought on record the muster roll between 1986 to 1989 wherein contesting-respondent was granted priority to work as Chowkidar as and when required. No further document was placed on record either by petitioner or contesting-respondent. Therefore, a finding returned by Labour Court that in terms of Section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act, the contesting-respondent was in continuous service and that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, would not be justified. 5 Writ C No. 11036 of 2021 9. Otherwise also, even if the order of reinstatement is upheld, the further direction of full back wages would be contrary to settled law position as held by Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 as well as State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma, 2025 INSC 1500 that an order of full back wages cannot be automatic with an order of reinstatement. 10. The Court also takes note that contesting-respondent has 2-3 years to work if he is reinstated though there is no material on record either before Labour Court or before this Court that during earlier period contesting-respondent was not gainfully employed. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would be justified if this writ petition is disposed of with one time lump sum compensation in view of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma (supra). Therefore, considering that contesting-respondent has worked for about 6 years as per his own case and Rs. 1 lakh has already been deposited, one time lump sum compensation is determined to be Rs. 3 lacs. Contesting-respondent will be at liberty to file an application for release of Rs. 1 lakh already deposited and remaining amount of Rs. 2 las shall be paid by petitioners to contesting-respondent within four weeks from today. 12. With aforesaid observations, directions and liberty this writ petition is disposed of. September 16, 2026 AK (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad