COURT NO. 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1393 of 2001 (Old No. 9955/1999) O.N.G.C. Mahila Takniki Prashikshan Kendra, Dehradun ………Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani And others …….Respondents Sri J.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma,learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narian, learned Counsel for the workman/ respondent no. 2. 23 rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity of the award dated 16.5.1998 made under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The workman/ respondent no. 2 was engaged by the petitioner’s institution on 4.3. 1995 on the post of Clerk. He was kept on probation of a period of one year. After the expiry of one year, the period of probation was not extended by the institution and the workman continued in service. The services of the respondent no. 2 were terminated with effect from 28.3.1997 on the ground of misbehaviour and eve teasing. The termination of the services of the workman is termination simpliciter. No enqiry was conducted against the workman nor he was afforded any prior opportunity of hearing. Workman raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its employee Sri Wilson Robert, Clerk w.e.f. 28.03.1997 is improper or illegal? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? 3. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman/respondent no.2 and against the petitioner and ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the same does not require any interference by this Court. However, since the factum of gainful employment of the workman is undisputedly proved, therefore, it would not be proper to award any back wages to the workman respondent no. 2. the impugned award dated 16.5.1998 is modified to the extent indicate above. 5. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. the workman/respondent no. 2 shall not be paid any back wages and the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner towards it shall be released in favour of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.7.2008 Prabodh