IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 5939 OF 2001 (Old No. 21462 of 1992) M/s Nainital Zila Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd., Haldwani, Nainital, through Secretary. …………….Petitioner. Versus Peethaseen Adhikari & Ors. ………….Respondents. Mr. Sobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent no. 1 & 2. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 8th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.4.1992 passed by the respondent no. 1 / Prescribed Authority directing the petitioner to reinstate the opposite party no. 3 in employment with all benefits accrued to him in the past contained in Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 Sri Kundan Singh was employed as workman by the petitioner on 16.8.1982 as Helper vide order dated 16.8.1982 and was posted on 17.8.1982 to work in the petitioner’s shop situate at Bail Parao, Tehsil Ramnagar, Nainital on salary @ Rs. 350/- per month. Since 31.12.1983, the said workman was required to work as Sales-man having taken charge from Sri Pramod Kumar Joshi on 1.1.1984 and thereafter, he continued till 20.10.1987 on the abovesaid pay and thereafter, his services were closed down, after giving him his wages for 2 the period of notice as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by cheque of Rs. 350/, but the same was not received on the ground that the amount which was prescribed for the sale man under the Minimum Wage Act and was received back on 4.11.1987. On the closure of the business of the said shop, charge of salesman was taken from the respondent no. 3. Against the said retrenchment, respondent no. 3 moved a petition before the respondent no. 1 being Petition No. 358- 36/Shra. / Nya. Wa./ Abhi. / 88 / 90 dated 6.4.92. Respondent no. 1 allowed the petition of the respondent no. 3 Kundan Singh vide order dated 6.4.1992. 3. I have gone through the orders passed by the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to financial difficulty retrenchment became necessary against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. 5. While passing the award, the Labour Court, after relying upon various documentary evidence adduced by the parties, has recorded a finding that the respondent no. 3 had been employed by Niyojan Kendriya Upbhokta Bhandar and was posted at Belparao Branch, therefore, closure of the Belparao Branch does not give right to Employer to terminate the services of the petitioner. It has further been recorded that at the time of termination of the services of the petitioner, posts equivalent to the petitioner were vacant, whereupon fresh appointments 3 were made. By recording the aforesaid finding, the court below has held that the termination of the respondent no. 3 on 21.10.1987 was unjustified and illegal and the Court below has directed to pay full wages for the period, the workman remained suspended. The employer was further directed to reinstate the workman Kundan Singh from the date of termination. 6. I find no error in the findings recorded by the court below, but the award is modified to this extent that the respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to get 50% of the back wages. Rest of the findings recorded by the court below is confirmed. 7. Writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.8.2008 Rathour