COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 4732/2001 (Old No. 27684/1995) Uttar Pradesh Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd. …….Petitioner Versus Labour Court & Other …….Respondents Sri U.P.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narain, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 2. 3rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. My means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 25.1.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradoon. The impugned award is contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 2. The workman/respondent no. 2 was appointed in September, 1983 on the post of Chowkidar in the petitioner’s department and he continued to work until the termination of his services w.e.f. 6.8.1986 by an oral order and without any prior notice or pay in lieu of the notice. Under these facts and circumstances, the following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Sri Komal Singh Visht, S/o Sri Pratap Singh Visht from the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 6.8.1986 was legal and justified? If not, to 2 what relief the concerned workman is entitled to get? 3. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration all the documentary and oral evidence adduced on record, has recorded a clear cut finding that the workman has completed more than 240 days and has ordered for his reinstatement along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and have gone though the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the workman/respondent no. 2 was not appointed by the Managing Director, who is the appointing authority and has placed his reliance upon the rules known as Uttar Pradesh Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd. General Service Rules applicable to the servants of the U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd. 6. The service has been defined under clause 23 of Rule 3 of the said Rules, which says that service means service of the Corporation. In the Corporation, for the construction work there is a set up from the upper level of Chief General Manager up to lowest level of Junior Engineer. In the construction work, labourers are engaged and their engagements are made by the Engineer-in-Chief. For the purpose of the work and according to their continuity, they become either permanent workmen or temporary workmen or casual workmen, as they may be classified according to the standard standing orders framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh as the learned Counsel for the petitioner shows his inability as to whether any such standing order has 3 been framed by the Corporation or not. No standing order of the Corporation is on the record. 7. The workman, as per the finding of the Labour Court which is not perverse, has completed 240 days and the Labour Court has rightly ordered for his reinstatement. Since the workman has died, therefore, only the compensation part of the award survives now, which is to be paid to the widow of the workman. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. (P.C. Verma, J.) 3.7.2008 Prabodh