ORDER : 1. The petitioner raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 challenging his termination dated 04.12.1986 on account of the fact that he had worked for more than 277 days from 02.12.1985 to 03.12.1986 but his services were dispensed with without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). 2. The matter was referred to the labour Court and the labour Court passed an award on 7.8.2003 holding that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days but as the provisions of the Act of 1947 did not apply on District Rural Development Authority (for short DRDA) it did not come within the ambit of definition of ‘industry’, the claim was, therefore, rejected. 3. The view taken was in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arun Kumar, 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 241. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3093/2004 challenging the award and also challenged his termination with the prayer to reinstate him. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.2.2008 relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court (supra). The award passed by the labour Court was upheld. The petitioner preferred DB Special Appeal No. 1133/2008 which was decided on 11.8.2008 and after hearing both the parties it was observed that the submission relating to DRDA having merged into Zila Parishad was not examined and permission was granted to the petitioner to file review petition. 4. Accordingly the petitioner filed review petition before the Single Judge bearing No. 183/2008 which came to be allowed on 30.5.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the labour Court. The earlier order passed by the labor Court is quashed and set aside and judgment passed by the High Court was also set aside. Both the parties were directed to appear before the labour Court to argue afresh. 5. The earlier order passed by the labor Court is quashed and set aside and judgment passed by the High Court was also set aside. Both the parties were directed to appear before the labour Court to argue afresh. 5. The labour Court Bharatpur while noting the aforesaid events has passed award again on 31.01.2012 holding that as DRDA does not come within the ambit of industry in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and as the petitioner was not in service on the day when the DRDA merged with the Zila Parishad, petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of the Zila Parishad and the termination order which was originally passed related to only DRDA and the Zila Parishad does not come into picture for the purpose of disposal of the dispute. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has again come up before this Court. 6. In the present writ petition, he raised for quashing the award dated 31.1.2012. It is submitted that once the issue regarding the maintainability of the dispute is decided in the review petition and the matter had been remanded back to the learned labour Court to examine the disputes on merits, the petitioner could not have been ousted on the ground that DRDA was not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Act of 1947. It is submitted that Zila Parishad falls within the definition of ‘industry’ and as it takes over all the responsibilities and liabilities of the DRDA. The minor becomes the part of the major, the petitioner ought to be treated to be a workman of the Zila Parishad. It is his submission that if any award is passed, in favour of the petitioner, Zila Parishad would be liable to implement the same. In the circumstances, labour Court could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner once it reached to the conclusion that termination was in contravention of the Act of 1947. 7. Counsel for the respondents per contra submits that petitioner cannot be said to be an employee appointed even on daily wages at Zila Parisahd. The appointment was made by DRDA and the termination was also by DRDA which admittedly does not come within the industry. 7. Counsel for the respondents per contra submits that petitioner cannot be said to be an employee appointed even on daily wages at Zila Parisahd. The appointment was made by DRDA and the termination was also by DRDA which admittedly does not come within the industry. In the circumstances if a wrongful suit has been filed against the DRDA and it is found that the suit/dispute is not maintainable against DRDA, the same would remain applicable even if DRDA is later on absorbed and merged with the Zila Parishad while stepping into the shoes of the DRDA, the status of the DRDA would not be converted to that of Zila Parishad. Hence, he supports the award and rightly submits that the labour Court has rightly reached to the conclusion. 8. Having heard both the Counsel and submission as noted above, this Court finds that while it is true that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination and finding of fact has been arrived at in the impugned order also, this Court does not find any error in the conclusions drawn by the labour Court with regard to the applicability of the Act of 1947 in relation to the petitioner vis-a-vis the DRDA. Merely because the DRDA merged with the Zila Parishad, an employee whose services were terminated by the DRDA cannot get the benefit of the subsequent status which DRDA may have acquired having been merged in Zila Parishad. So far as the status of DRDA not being an industry, is concerned, the same continues so far as the dispute raised is concerned. A look at the reference shows that the reference is relating to the order of termination passed by DRDA and not by Zila Parishad. 9. In the circumstances, conclusions of the labour Court cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.