COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 746/2001 (Old No. 37864/1996) Uttaranchal Power Corporation & Other ……..Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun And Others ……..Respondents Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. 15 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the orders dated 30.7.1996 and 15.10.1996 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947 has been challenged in this petition. 2. Following reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in dismissing its workman Nand Kishor S/o Sri mango Singh on 31.7.1987 is improper and/or illegal? If yes, to what relief/compensation the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court passed an ex parte award dated 25.4.1995, which was published on 20.10.1995, whereby the aforesaid reference was answered in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the employer. Therefore, petitioners filed an application seeking recall of the ex parte award dated 25.4.1995. Respondent no. 2/Union opposed the said application. Since the petitioners were not served with the notice before passing the aforesaid ex parte award, the Labour Court vide order dated 22.1.1996 allowed the recall/restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioners and set aside the ex parte award dated 25.4.1995. 4. On 17.5.1996, a fresh award was passed by the Labour Court deciding the case in favour of the employer and against the workman. Thereafter on the application of the workman, the aforesaid award dated 17.5.1996 was recalled by the Labour Court vide order dated 25.6.1996 observing that the said award was also ex parte. 5. Thereafter the court below vide the impugned order dated 30.7.1996 ordered that ex parte award dated 25.4.1995, which was passed initially, shall remain in force as same has been published and the subsequent award dated 17.5.1996 need not be published. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners for recall/review of the aforesaid order dated 30.7.1996, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.10.1996. Hence, this petition. 6. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 30.7.1996 and 15.7.1996 reveals that the Labour Court has given contradictory reasons and these orders have not been passed after thorough examination of the matter and in true perspective of law. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, impugned orders are liable to be set 2 aside and are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide the dispute afresh on merit after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall give specific finding. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.7.2008 Prabodh 3