IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 2510 OF 2001 (Old No. 41172 of 1998) General Manager & another. ……Petitioners. Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ………..Respondents. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.9.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are Corporation under the Administrative Control and supervision of the Govt. of India under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Respondent no. 3 Mr. Girbir Singh Chauhan was initially appointed vide letter dated 8.1.1990 for a period of three months as a temporary employee to work as Assistant Public Relation Officer on consolidated salary of Rs. 2800/- per month. The engagement of the respondent no. 3 was extended from time to time by letter dated 7.5.1990, 30.10.1990, 28.11.1990, 3.4.1991 and 13.7.1991. Vide order dated 8th July, 1991, respondent no. 3 was transferred and relieved from Corporate Office, Delhi to Rishikesh Office. He was 2 further transferred and relieved from Rishikesh to Meerut Office vide order dated 16.11.1991. Since, the respondent no. 3 did not report for duty at the Meerut Office pursuant to the transfer dated 16.11.1991, neither any information was received from the respondent no. 3, nor he applied for leave, therefore vide order dated 4th December, 1991, services of the respondent no. 3 were terminated presuming him not interested in service of the company. Respondent No. 3 was re-employed as a temporary employee on the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer for a specific period of six months on consolidated salary of Rs. 2800/- per month at Dehradun. Respondent No. 3 was regularized vide order dated 3.9.1993. Pursuant to order dated 29.4.1992 & 3.9.1993, the petitioners were paying salary to the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 filed an application before the Labour Court Dehradun under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the month of January, 1998 claiming difference of salary for the period April, 1990 to November, 1991 as if he was a regular employee, C.P.F. Medical Leave of 33-1/2 days and Earned Leave of 97 days for the period April, 1990 to July, 1993, Medical Reimbursement for six family members for the period April, 1990 to July, 1993, L.T.C. for the block year 1990-91 and 1992-93 and transport allowance in reference to transfer from Delhi to Rishikesh in the year, 1991 and Rishikesh to Dehradun in the year, 1992. 3. On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the petitioner filed its written statement. Thereafter, a 3 rejoinder affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 3 dated 18.8.1998. 4. Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed an order dated 30th September, 1998 holding that the respondent no. 3 was workman and was entitled for notional promotion from 1990 on the basis of agreement dated 4.1.1992. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider that on 3.9.1993, he was appointed in the scale of Rs. 2350-4150 and was regularly paid his salary. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has not considered the respondent was offered temporary employment on 29.4.1992 on a fixed salary of Rs. 2800/-, which he was paid till he was regularized. 6. Respondents have been given time to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has yet been filed. 7. I have gone through the impugned order as well as contents of the present writ petition and after perusal of the same, I find force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, the order dated 30.9.1998 contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition is quashed. 8. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is remanded to the 4 Labour Court in order to decide the matter afresh after computing the period only in which the respondent no. 3 has worked. 9. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour