IN TH E H IGH COURT OF UTTARANCH AL AT NAINITAL W RIT PETITION NO.358 6 (M/ S) OF 20 0 1 1. State of U.P. through Secretary Irrigation Department, U.P. Govt., Lucknow. 2. The Executive Engineer, Investigation and Planning Quality Control Division (World Bank), Roorkee, District Haridwar. .......... Petitioners Versus 1. Sri Ramesh Chandra, S/o Sri Bhagat Singh, C/o Sri Munesh Tyagi, Advocate, 10-Collectorate, Meerut. 2. The Labour Court-II, Meerut, through its Presiding Officer. .......... Respondents Shri Nand Prasad, learned standing counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Dated: 16.06.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 12.05.1992 published on 21.09.1992 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). Briefly stated, according to the case of the petitioner, the respondent n. 1 was engaged for three months only w.e.f. 25.01.1987 and again his employment was extended for two months from 25.04.1987 to 24.06.1987 to 24.06.1987 as stop gap arrangement in investigation and Planning, Quality Control Division (World Bank), Roorkee. However, counsel for the respondents has submitted that on 24.06.1987, the service of Respondent No.1 was terminated by the petitioner without following the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 raised the industrial dispute, which was referred in the following terms: - “Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Driver by the employers from 24.06.1987 is justified and/or legal? if no, to which benefit / compensation the applicant/ workman is entitled and to what extent?”” After the receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to the parties to file their written statement/objections. The labour court after considering the oral and documentary evidency led by the parties came to a conclusion that the termination of services of Respondent No.1 was illegal and unjustified and therefore passed the order for his reinstatement with full back wages. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. The Tribunal has recorded the finding to the following effect:- “bl fo"k; esa loZizFke ;g ns[kuk gS fd ;fn ;g 100 1@2 nks fnu lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ds mlds fyfird dh lsok esa tksM+ fn;s tk;s rc mldh lsok 240 fnu ls dgha vf/kd gks tkrh gSA ;g lsok mldh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ 12 eklksa ls mlus dh gSA bl fo"k; esa tgk¡ rd fujUrjrk dk iz’u gS ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh y[kuÅ [kaMihB }kjk ujs’k pUnz JhokLro rFkk LdwVj bf.M;k fyfeVsM y[kuÅ esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk bl ekeys ij ykxw gksrh gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;y; }kjk nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn Jfed us lsok;kstd ds v/khu fdlh izdkj Hkh 12 eklksa esa ls 240 fnu ls de dk;Z ugha fd;k gS rc og pkgs yxkrkj ukSdjh esa u jgk gks fujUrj ,d o"kZ dh lsok esa ekU; gksxkA bl izdkj ;g lqfuf’pr gks tkrk gS fd mlds 240 fnu dh fujUrj lsok lsoklekfIr ls iwoZ 12 eklksa esa iw.kZ dh yh Fkh pwafd mlds dk;Z fnol 250 vkrs gSA” The Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that the termination of the service of the workman Sri Ramesh Chandra S/o Sri Bhagwat Singh is not legal and proper and therefore passed the order reinstating the services of the petitioner as well as releasing the back wages and other benefits. Respondent has placed reliance on the judgment dated 07.11.2005 passed in W.P. No. 648 of 2001 (M/S) (State of U.P. Vs. Sri Dharam Singh and another), Where reinstatement has been directed. Present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Tribunal while holding the respondent no. 1 has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, no error of law in recording finding of fact by the Labour Court is pointed out. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 16.06.2006 Rathour