Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.388 of 2002 (Old No.25305 of 1998) The Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Limited, Iqbalpur, District Haridwar. ………. Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned award dated 08.08.1996 passed by the respondent No.2/Labour Court,Dehradun in Adjudication Case No.105 of 1992 contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. On a dispute raised by the workman, the U.P. Government vide notification dated 12.02.1992 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3. Before the Labour Court the workman pleaded that he was working as an unskilled worker with the petitioner–mill from last six years but he was not being paid wages as per the Wage Board’s recommendation. When the workman as well as the Workers Union made demand for it and filed application before the Conciliation 2 Officer, the employer-petitioner terminated the services of the respondent No.2/workman without giving any prior notice and compensation in lieu of notice on 26.04.1991. 4. The petitioner’s pleaded that the workman /respondent No.2 was never employed with the petitioner mill and there is no relation between the employer and respondent No.2 of master and servant. Hence the dispute cannot be said as industrial dispute and the reference is bad in law. The workman filed documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The employer- petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of its case. The employer also did not produce the register by which the bonus has been paid to the workman despite the order of Labour Court on the application of the workman. The Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the employer. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the workman has wrongly been terminated from service and passed order for his reinstatement with fifty per cent back wages. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded finding on the basis of documentary evidence adduced by the workman which has not been rebutted by the employer-petitioner. The finding recorded by the Labour Court calls for no interference by this Court. 6. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh