IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1052 of 2002 State of U.P. and another. … Petitioners. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another. … Respondents. Mr. R.C.Arya, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the petitioners-State. Mr. D.S.Mehta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C.Pant, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Date July 13, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 31-5-1997 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the respondent no.2-workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service along with 50% back wages. The workman has also been awarded an amount of Rs. 500/- as cost. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that a dispute was raised by the workman with his employer. The State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) referred the dispute to the Labour Court by its Notification dated 19-12-1996 for adjudication, which reads as under:- “Whether the termination of services of Sri Bhim Raj Bhatt, Gate Keeper, by his employers from 30-3-1995 is illegal and improper? If yes, to what relief is the workman entitled to get and its details?” It appears from a perusal of the record that the workman was employed from January 1993 as a labourer in Dehradun Forest Division and on 30-3-1995, his services were terminated without any prior notice. According to the workman, neither he was paid salary in lieu of notice nor retrenchment 2 compensation was paid to him. On the other hand, according to the petitioners, the workman himself absented himself from duty and lastly on 30-3-1995, the workman left his service for ever. As such, the workman was neither entitled to any compensation. Before the Labour Court, the petitioners filed the written statement giving details of the job of the workman showing that the workman remained on duty from January to December in 1993, in the year 1994, from January to June, August and from October to December and during the year 1995, the workman was engaged in duty from January to March. The petitioner admitted that no notice was given to the workman after he left the work in March 1995. It was asserted that no notice was required to be given to the workman because he himself had left the work. The petitioners in their second written submission has given different details of work of the workman. The learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties has given a categorical finding of fact that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year preceding March 1995, when the services of the workman were terminated by the employers. Learned Labour Court has held that the workman was entitled to get the benefits of Section 6-N of the Act and that the mandatory procedure for termination of services has not been adhered to, in case the services of the workman were no more required in the department. Ultimately, by the impugned award dated 31-5-1997, the workman has been reinstated in service along with 50% back- wages. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main ground of challenge raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Labour Court has failed to record a finding whether the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year. It may be mentioned at the outset that in writ jurisdiction, a finding of fact, arrived at on appraisal of evidence of 3 record, cannot be examined like a court of appeal, unless the finding is any way perverse or illegal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Labour Court has not recorded any finding whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year is not tenable for the simple reason as from a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of evidence led by the petitioners itself that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months and therefore, the workman- respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of the Act. This finding is recorded at page 2 of the impugned award. In the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence led by the parties before it. In my view, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court is based on appraisal of evidence. The impugned award does not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The writ petition being devoid is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 26-8-1998 is vacated. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP