IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.499 of 2001 (Old No.4579 of 1993) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nainital through its Regional Manager. ………… Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P.,Haldwani, Nainital. ……… Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Sri P.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Date: June 26, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J This writ petition is directed against award dated 20.10.1992 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court in adjudication case no. 89 of 1990. 2. The dispute was referred by the State Government vide Government Order dated 25.07.1988 under Section 4 K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Labour Court Bareily and thereafter vide order dated 12.12.1989 it was transferred to the Labour Court Haldwani. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether not granting the benefit of seniority and wages to the workman –Sri Madan Kumar, Fitter and not sanctioning leave for grant of aforesaid two benefits by the employer was legal and 2 justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to get?” 3. Undisputed facts of the case are that respondent no. 3/workman was appointed as Cleaner on 16.03.1962 in the establishment of petitioner/U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and since the year 1973 he has been working as Fitter. On 25.05.1978, the respondent no. 3 – Madan Kumar fell ill and because of illness, he remained on medical leave for one year and five months and submitted his medical leave applications regularly. On account of there being no application for medical leaves, the absence of the workman was treated to be illegitimate and his service was terminated on 19.10.1979. After being recovered from ill health in the year 1984, the workman approached the employer /petitioner and the employer gave fresh appointment to him on the post of Fitter on 07.06.1984. 4. Since, the workman/respondent no. 3 was re- appointed in the year 1984 and this fact has also been admitted by workman, therefore there was no question regarding grant of leave and salary and adding that gap- period for the purpose of seniority. Respondent no. 3 has himself accepted the fresh appointment, and as such, he abandoned the right to claim such benefits as referred in the reference. 5. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, reference was bad in law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned award which was displayed on the notice 3 board on 20.10.1992 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma,J.) 26.06.2008 SKS/P.Singh