Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 939 of 2001 (Old No.44748 of 1998) University of Roorkee through its Vice Chancellor and another. ……. Petitioners Versus Arvind Kumar and others …….Respondents. …………….. Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Sri Lalit Miglani Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this writ petition, the employers have challenged the impugned award dated 05.09.1997 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.8 of 1996, which was published on 21.09.1998. 2. On the dispute raised by the workman, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, through reference order No.1152-56/M.R.I.R.-(reference) C.P. 17 (h)/94 dated 07.02.1995 which was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No.08 of 1996. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of services of workman Sri Arvind Kumar S/o Sri Daya Ram by the employers with effect from 23.02.1994 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to get?” 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was engaged for fixed term and fixed wages in different projects and after the project was ov3r he had been disengaged. The last date on which the respondent No.1 was disengaged was 31.12.1991 and thereafter the petitioners never engaged him. The claim of the respondent No.1 was that he worked on muster roll with effect from 06.7.1982 to 22.2.1994 with the employers and on 23.2.1994 he has been removed from service without any prior notice. The Labour Court passed the award directing the petitioner No.2 to ensure the payment of wages to the respondent No.1/workman for the period 01.01.1992 to 23.02.1994 after recovery from Dr. (Professor) S.S.Srivastava. The workman pleaded that a certificate has also been issued to him by Professor S.S.Srivastava on 10.02.1994 that the workman did work with him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. Once the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the respondent No.1 was neither entitled for reinstatement nor for wages and dismissed the claim petition and simultaneously directed that salary of respondent No.1 from 1.1.1992 to 23.2.1994 be recovered from Dr. (Professor) S.S. Srivastava. The employers came with clean hand before the Labour Court that the respondent No.2 was engaged for fixed term in the project and he disengaged from work on 31.12.1991. There is no cogent evidence to this effect that the respondent No.1 did work after 31.12.1991. Dr. (Professor) S.S. Srivastava has not been made party to the claim petition. The impugned 3 award has been passed beyond the scope of reference. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction and the same cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 05.09.1997 is quashed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh 4