ANIANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners-employer against the award of the labour Court, Gorakhpur dated 18th March, 1986, passed in adjudication case No. 256 of 1984 was heard by this Court and this Court vide its judgment and order dated 12th June, 2001 passed an order to the effect that the workman concerned is not entitled for any relief and the present writ petition filed by employer is allowed in part and award was modified accordingly. The workman concerned, namely, Jayant Kumar misra aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 12th June, 2001 approached Honble Supreme Court by means of civil appeal No. 514 of 2004, arising out of s. L. P. (Civil) No. 10422 of 2002, in which Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the following direction : "leave granted. In view of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3350 of 2001, State of Haryana and anr. v. Sat Pal dated 30th October, 2002, the High Court is not right to saying that the workman is not entitled for any relief claimed. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for a decision on merits. Considering that this is an old matter, the High Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. " ( 2 ) THIS is how the matter has come up again before me. The brief facts of the present case are that the following dispute was referred to the labour Court by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industries Disputes Act, 1947, here-in-after referred to as the Act, for adjudication : "whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its employee Jayant Kumar mishra (son of Sri Kishori Nandan Mishra) operation w. e. f. 01-05-1982 is justified? If no, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?" ( 3 ) THE labour Court vide its award impugned in the present writ petition has held that Jal Nigam is an industry in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in its Constitutional Bench decision reported in 1978 (36) F. L. R. , 266 Banglore Water Supply and Severage Board v. A. Rajappa; and also Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 1983 (47) F. L. R. , 103 Ummyamal v. State of Kerala. The labour Court further held that the employer is covered by the definition of Industry under the provisions of the Act. On the question of merit, the labour court recorded a finding that in view of the law laid down in the case reported in 1982 (45)F. L. R. , 150 Ashok Pandurang Saware v. S. D. Rane that the services of the workman concerned were terminated without compliance of the provisions of the law is in fact is an order of punishment, which has been passed without affording any opportunity to the workman. The labour Court has also found that the punishment of termination of services is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the workman, namely, found absent from the duties. The employers case before the labour Court was that the workman concerned was a daily wager employee, who was employed since July, 1973 and he continued as such till the date when his services were terminated by the employer. This Court in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer in the case reported in 1997 (76) F. L. R. , 237 himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. have found that Section 6-N of the Act need not be observed while terminating the services of a daily wager as the daily wager has, no right to the post. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2001 passed by this Court, the workman concerned approached the Supreme Court on which the Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the order, referred to above. Thus, this matter has come up for hearing before this court. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2001 passed by this Court, the workman concerned approached the Supreme Court on which the Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the order, referred to above. Thus, this matter has come up for hearing before this court. Before this Court, the petitioner-employer reiterated same stand; (i) That U. P. Jal Nigam is not industry; and (ii) that the workman concerned was a daily wager, therefore for terminating his services, the provisions of the Act need not be complied with. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the workman concerned also, the same arguments were reiterated that the workman concerned has rendered more than 240 days of continuous service and that his services have been terminated by way of punishment without affording any opportunity whatsoever. In this view of this matter, the workman concerned is entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act is concerned, in my opinion applying the ratio of the Banglore waters case (supra)there is no doubt that Jal Nigam would be covered by the definition of an industry under the provisions of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act. Now with regard to the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners-employer, Honble Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sat Pal in civil appeal No. 3350 of 2001 has held that the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (supra) will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Applying the ratio of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sat Pals case, found the ratio of himanshu Kumars case (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, the view taken by the labour Court cannot be assailed when the services of the workman concerned were terminated without complying with the provisions of "the Act". It is admitted case of the parties that the concerned workmans services were terminated on account of the alleged misconduct without giving him any opportunity to submit his explanation. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the labour Court deserves to be up-held and is hereby up-held. It is admitted case of the parties that the concerned workmans services were terminated on account of the alleged misconduct without giving him any opportunity to submit his explanation. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the labour Court deserves to be up-held and is hereby up-held. ( 6 ) ON the question of grant of back wages, learned counsel for the workman has relied upon decision of this Court, but since the workman concerned has not challenged the award and and after I have held that the award of the labour Court is in accordance with law, the question of back wages as claimed by the workman concerned, need not be gone into and the argument advanced in this regard deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussions, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. . .