RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) 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 February 10, 2001 passed by respondent No. 2 i. e. the Presiding Officer, labour Court, Dehradun. FACTS: ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 was appointed on April 1, 1987 as Beldar in the department of petitioner No. 2 and he continued up to January 9,1992, but on January 10, 1992, his services were terminated without any prior notice, which is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the u. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 raised the dispute under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947. Following matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Dehradun: " Vernacular matter omitted. " the Labour Court after hearing both the parties held that the termination order passed by the petitioner-department is illegal and therefore, directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1, however because of delay in filing the claim petition, the Labour Court moulded the relief and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards back wages to the petitioner. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by this judgment of the labour Court, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. After hearing both the parties, following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the finding of the Labour Court with regard to 240 days can be said to be Illegal? (ii) The claim Petition having been filed after a lapse of a period of 7 years, can be rejected as highly belated? (iii) Whether, the Irrigation Department, where the respondent No. 1 was working is not within the definition of the Industry? findings on Point No. i ( 4 ) THE petitioner has stated that respondent No. 1 has not completed 240 days in whole calendar year. The findings of the labour Court, so far as point No. i is concerned, are quoted below: " Vernacular matter omitted. " from the aforesaid findings, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 has completed 240 days. From the evidence on record i. e. muster roll also establishes the same fact. The findings of the labour Court, so far as point No. i is concerned, are quoted below: " Vernacular matter omitted. " from the aforesaid findings, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 has completed 240 days. From the evidence on record i. e. muster roll also establishes the same fact. The service of the respondent No. 1 having been terminated without considering the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent No. 1 has been rightly granted the reinstatement by the Labour Court. So far as the completion of 240 days is concerned, there is sufficient material on the record that inspite of the opportunity given to the employer, he did not produce the muster roll. Whereas the respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that from December 1, 1987 to June 7, 1992 i. e. till the date of termination, he continued to work as daily wager. Finding on Point No. ii: ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the claim petition has been filed after a period of 7 years and as such, the same is not maintainable as it is highly belated. In Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U. P. State electricity Board and others AIR 2001 SC 2562 : 2001 (6) SCC 222 : 2001 2 LLJ 788 the apex Court has held as under at p. 1792 of LLJ: "14. It is useful to refer to a three Judgesbench 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 Match Co. Ltd. v. Western India match Co. Workers Union AIR 1970 SC 1205 : 1970 (1) SCC 225 : 1970-II-LLJ-256 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. 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. " ( 6 ) THE Labour Court has rightly moulded the award to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation in lieu of the back wages to the respondent No. i on account of the delay in filing the claim petition. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finding on Point No. iii: ( 7 ) SO far as the third point is concerned as to whether the Irrigation Department is covered under the definition of the Industry. The petitioner has stated that the Irrigation department is not covered under the definition of Industry. The matter has already been adjudicated in the case of State of U. P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another 2003-IV-LLJ (Suppl)-992 (NOC) by the uttaranchal High Court by his Lordship hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in des Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) SCC 537 : 1988-II-LLJ-149 and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage board v. A. Rajappa's case AIR 1978 SC 548 : 1978 (2) SCC 213: 1978-I-LLJ-349. JUSTICE P. C. VERMA after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in des Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) SCC 537 : 1988-II-LLJ-149 and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage board v. A. Rajappa's case AIR 1978 SC 548 : 1978 (2) SCC 213: 1978-I-LLJ-349. Relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the uttaranchal High Court are quoted below:"the Apex Court in Des Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) SCC 537 : 1988-II-LLJ-149 after applying the aforesaid text on the nature of activities carried on by the Irrigation Department held that Irrigation Department is an 'industry'. Since the Kalagrah unit is the branch of irrigation Department, therefore, the same is also an Industry within the definition of 'industry' under the U. P. Industrial disputes Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa's case AIR 1978 SC 548 : 1978 (2) SCC 213 : 1978-I-LLJ-349. " ( 8 ) IN this regard, the Labour Court has also recorded a finding to that effect:-"vernacular matter omitted. " the Irrigation Department has been held to be an industry and as such, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court. Conclusions: ( 9 ) THE workman has set up his case that he was continuously working from April 1, 1987 to January 9, 1992 with the employer and before terminating his services, he has completed 240 days of working in preceding 12 months and that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with by the employer and therefore, termination or'der is wholly illegal. ( 10 ) IN view of the findings recorded above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are findings of fact and this Court, therefore in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India, declines to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .