Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1346 OF 2007 (Old No.27420 of 1998) State of U.P. through Superintending Engineer, Maneri Bhali Stage-2 Mandal, Joshiyada, Uttarkashi and another ……….. Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Dehradun and another. ……….. Respondents ……………………… Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.2. Date Aug. 11,2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.01.1998 passed by Labour Court in Misc.Case No.3 of 1998 whereby application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been allowed. 2. The respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming respective amount to be paid to them on the basis of Notification dated 11.7.1990 and claimed difference of wages on the basis of prescribed minimum wages with effect from 01.8.1990 of the post of Semi- skilled Beldar. 2 3. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the respondent No.2/workman is not entitled for the wages of semi-skilled Beldar as they fall in the category of unskilled Beldar. The petitioners relied upon the Government Order dated 25th June, 1996, by which Beldars were divided in two categories, namely, regular Beldar i.e. semi-skilled and helper Beldar i.e. unskilled. 4. I have gone through the impugned order. The Labour Court recorded finding that clause 10 of Notification dated 11.7.1990 issued in respect of minimum wages provided that Beldar working in Irrigation projects comes within the category of semi- skilled workman and there is no mention in the said notification about the service period of semi-skilled workman. This notification has statutory force and it has no overriding effect of any Government Order or Departmental Order. The respondent No.2/workman has completed seven-year-service and has applied after the enforcement of the Notification. I find that the Labour Court has not committed any error or mistake in allowing the application filed by the workman/respondent No.2 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008. P.Singh 3