IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6027 (ms) OF 2001 (Old No. 30655 of 1992) Mohan Chand ……….Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and others. ……….Respondents. 14.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Haldwani District Nainital (Now Uttarakhand)/ respondent no. 1 as published on 28.5.1992 and the termination order dated 21.9.1988. Further prayer in the writ petition has been made for a direction to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of services and payment of entire back wages forthwith. 3. The petitioner raised industrial dispute. The State Government on 18.5.1989 referred the question of law to Labour Court, Haldwani being Reference Case No. 220 of 1990. The reference was as follows: 2 “Whether the termination of the services of their worker Mohan Chandra S/o Sri Vir Bhanu Chandra, Office Assistant by the Employers are justified and/or legal? if not, to what relief/ compensation, the concerned worker is entitled to get?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in Polyplex Corporation Limited by the respondent no. 2 General Manager on 11.5.1987 by an appointment letter of the same date. Pursuant to that letter, the petitioner joined his duty on 12.5.1987 at the Branch Office, Bareilly. In continuation of the said aforesaid letter, the respondent no. 2 on 12.12.1987 issued another letter informing the petitioner that from 1.11.1987, the basic salary of the petitioner has been enhanced from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 900/- per month with other allowance and according to the condition mentioned in the appointment letter, the place of posting was Company’s office at Bareilly, but he was liable to be transferred to any of the offices/units of the company without any change in terms of the employment. On 27.8.1988, the petitioner received a letter written by Assistant Manager (Personnel) informing him that he has decided to close down their branch office at Bareilly and in pursuance of this decision, the petitioner was instructed to contact the House owner of the Bareilly office and settle the accounts with him. He was further asked to come to Khatima (Factory Site) after settling accounts with the House Owner at Badaun. The petitioner complied with the instructions given through letter dated 27.8.1988 and vacated the office premises at Bareilly. 3 Thereafter, he went back to the Factory site at Khatima and resumed his duty on 5.9.1988 in the unit of respondent no. 2. The petitioner has submitted that he has worked upto 21.9.1988 in the Khatima Unit of the employer without any let or hindrance, but on 22.9.1988, when he tried to enter from the factory gate at Khatima, he was prohibited to do so by the security guard present on the duty. On enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the General Manager had given oral instructions not to permit the petitioner to enter the factory campus and he is no more an employee of the Polyplex Corporation Ltd. When the respondent no. 2 neither permitted the petitioner to work, nor passed any termination order, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. The State Government by order dated 18.5.1989 referred the question of law mentioned above to the Labour Court, Bareilly for adjudication. 4. In the said reference, the petitioner filed his written statement stating therein that he has completed more than 240 days’ uninterrupted service in a Calendar year, hence, he is entitled to continue in service. 5. Both the parties filed their respective documents in support of the case. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed issues for determination of the dispute: “1) Whether the appointment of the worker/applicant had been done for Bareilly Office? 2) Whether the transfer of the worker/applicant has been done to Khatima Office? 4 3) Whether the worker / applicant has ever worked in Khatima Office, if yes, effect? 4) Whether the services of the worker/applicant have been terminated on 21.9.1988? 5) Whether harassment of the worker/applicant has been done by the Employers as he had made a Union of workers in the establishment? 6) Whether the services of the worker / applicant has been terminated vide letter dated 21.9.1988?” 7. After framing the aforesaid issues, the court below has recorded a finding that the applicant / worker had been appointed at Bareilly Office after relying upon the Application Letter dated Exhibit E-3 and letter dated 11th May, 1987. Regarding the transfer to Khatima Office, the applicant / worker has not filed any document. The statement of E.W.1 has been relied upon, wherein it has been stated that the applicant / worker has not done any work in the Khatima Office. A finding has further been recorded that there is no evidence showing that the applicant / worker was ever engaged in making union in the establishment and his harassment has been made by the Employers. After relying upon the letters dated 20.8.1988 and 21.9.1988, the court below has recorded a finding that the applicant / worker was having knowledge of letter dated 21.9.1988 and against this letter, no objection has been raised by the worker/applicant. The court below has further recorded a finding that the appointment of the worker / applicant had been made at Bareilly Office, which had been opened temporarily and which is completely closed and there is no presumption of its reopening and the services of the worker/petitioner 5 have rightly been terminated vide letter dated 21.9.1988. Since the Bareilly Office has been permanently closed, therefore, under Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, the worker is entitled to get compensation. The court below has directed the Employer to pay the amount of earned salary and retrenchment compensation immediately within a period of thirty days along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further a finding has been recorded that the services of the petitioner have legally been terminated and the worker is not entitled to get any other relief except the compensation under Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the labour court is cryptic, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed as the legal aspects and the evidence available on record have not been considered. Further submission is that the petitioner has not been served upon with the notice of termination. 9. I am not convinced with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the court below has passed the award after perusing the evidence available on the record i.e. letters dated 20.8.1988, 21.9.1988, application Exhibit-3 and thereafter, the court below has also framed rules and after a thorough perusal of the record, the order has been passed by the court below. So far as the service of notice is concerned, the court below in paragraph 16 of the reference order has recorded a finding that the petitioner was having knowledge of some letter 6 dated 21.9.1988 and this letter has not been objected in the reference. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondent no. 1 on 27.5.1992 and the same is confirmed 11. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 14.7.2008 Rathour 7