Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Award dated 13.9.2001, passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Annexure-1 to this writ petition.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Respondent No. 1 was working as Fire-watchcr/Chaukidar in the Forest Department from 1.4.1991 but he was removed from service on 20.4.1995. His case was referred to the Labour Court vide notification dated 1.8.2001 for adjudication. The following disputed was referred for adjudication :
D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh Jh jktikyflag iq= Jh eaxywflag dh lsok;sa fnukad 20-4-95 ls lekIr fd;k tkukvuqfpr@voS/kkfud gS ;fn gk rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k ikusdk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k ds lkFk
4. Respondent No. 1 has claimed that since he has worked for more than 240 days with the petitioner and as such, his services cannot be terminated without following the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
5. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has completed 240 days and as such, he was entitled for the benefits of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has also concluded that the order of removal of Respondent No. 1 from service by the petitioner was illegal.
6. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman to his post and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lump sum as back wages was awarded to him.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three points :
(i) The finding of the Labour Court with regard to the benefit given to the Respondent No. 2 so far as 240 days are concerned is wholly illegal.
(ii) The Respondent No. 2 was employed for a particular period.
(iii) The claim petition having been filed after a lapse of a period for more than 5 years, the same was highly belated.
8. So far as the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days arc quoted below :
onh Jfed us vius dsl dh iqf'V esa mi oulaj{kd f'kokfyd ou foHkkx] nsgjknwu dk izek.k&i;= nkf[ky fd;k ftlesa mldhvizSy] 1993 ls ekpZ] 1994 rd vius lkFk nSfud osru Hkksxh vnZyh ds :i esadk;Zjr gksuk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS rFkk cu jkft vf/kdkjh eYgku jsat f'kokfyd ouizHkkx ds izek.k&i;= dh ,d izfr nkf[ky dh ftlesa mls o'kZ 1991&92esa eYgku jsat esa Qk;j okpj ds :i esa dk;Zjr jguk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA blizdkj 240 fnuksa ls vf/kd dk;Z dj ysus dh fLFkfr esa mls mOizO vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6&,u esa vf/kdkj@ykHk mn~Hkwr gks pqds Fks ftuls mls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA
9. I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the Labour Court.
10. So far as the time bound engagement is concerned in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 500, Gammon India Limited v. Niranjan Dass, the Apex Court, after relying upon the various judgments of the Hon'blc Supreme Court, a finding has been recorded that the services of the employee of a company cannot be terminated on account of recession and reduction in the volume of work of the company.
11. In S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 380, it has been held as under :
'It is common knowledge that the Government as a welfare State floats several schemes and projects generating employment opportunities, though they are short-lived. The objective is to meet the need of the moment. The benefit of such schemes and projects is that for the duration they exist, they provide employment and livelihood to such persons as would not have been able to secure the same but for such schemes or projects. If the workmen employed for fulfilling the need of such passing-phase projects or schemes were to become a liability on the employer State by too liberally interpreting the labour laws in favour of the workmen, then the same may well act as a disincentive to the State for floating such schemes and the State may opt to keep away from initiating such schemes and projects even in times of dire need, because it may feel that by opening the gates of welfare it would be letting in onerous obligations entailed upon it by extended application of labour laws. Sub-clause (bb) in the definition of retrenchment was introduced to take care of such like situations by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 18.8.1984.
The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied :
(i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simpliciter, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project;
(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract; and
(iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment.
The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or up to the occurrence of some event, and, therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the contract, the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not, therefore, complain that by the act of the employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of Sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily- wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of Sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment.'
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim petition has been filed after a period of 5 years and as such, the same is not maintainable.
13. In Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 2001 SLR 658 (SC), the Apex Court has held as under :
'It is useful to refer to a three Judges Bench decision of this Court as it related to the scope of the very same provision i.e., Section 4-K of the U.P. Act. In Western India Watch Co. Ltd. v. The Western India Watch Co. Workers Union, AIR 1970 SC 1205, learned Judges made the following observations :
Therefore, the expression 'at any time', though seemingly without any limits, is governed by the context in which it appears. Ordinarily, the question of making a reference would arise after conciliation proceedings have been gone through and the Conciliation Officer has made a failure report. But the Government need not wait until such a procedure has been completed. In an urgent case, it can 'at any time', i.e. even when such proceedings have not begun or are still pending, decide to refer the dispute for adjudication. The expression 'at any time' thus takes in such cases as where the Government decides to make a reference without waiting for conciliation proceedings to begin or to be completed. As already stated, the expression 'at any time' in the context in which it is used postulates that a reference can only be made if an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. No reference is contemplated by the section when the dispute is not an industrial dispute, or even if it is so, it no longer exists or is not apprehended, for instance, where it is already adjourned or in respect of which there is an agreement or a settlement between the parties or where the industry in question is no longer in existence.'
14. However, Labour Court has moulded the relief to the following extend :
eSa ;g vfHkfu.kZ; nsrk gw fd lsok;kstdksa }kjkvius deZpkjh jktiky flag iq= Jh eaxyw flag dh lsok;s fnukad 20-4-95 ls lekIrfd;k tkuk mfpr o oS/kkfud ugha gS rFkk ;g funs'k nsrk gw fd mls lsok esa iwoZdh Hkkfr iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk; ijUrq fookn mBkus esa gq, foyEc dks ns[krs gq,fiNyh vof/k ds osru dk Hkkj lsok;kstdksa ij ugha Mkyk tk jgk gSA oknh Jfed dks5000 :i;k eqvkotk o :O 1000@& okn O;;fn;k tk;A
15. The findings of the Labour Court that the Respondent No. 1 has worked for more than 240 days being findings of fact. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court so as o interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. In view of the aforesaid findings the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.