COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 3651/2001 (Old No. 6412/1995) U.P. State Electricity Board & Other …….Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani And Others …….Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri B.D. Upadhyay with Sri Manav Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 4. 15th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 15.9.1992 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the workman/respondent no. 4 had worked as muster roll employee in the petitioners’ establishment from 1.4.1976 to 31.1.1979. His Services were terminated on 31.1.1979 without giving him any prior notice or pay in lieu of the notice. He was also not paid any retrenchment compensation. It was also alleged on behalf the workman that services of some junior workmen were regularized. Workman raised an industrial dispute and under these facts and circumstances, the appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in not regularizing the services of its workman 2 Pan Singh S/o Sri Shiv Singh is improper and/or illegal? If yes, to what relief/compensation the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date? 3. The Labour Court vide the impugned award answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and directed the employer to regularize the services of the workman/respondent no. 4 on the post of Coolie from the date of the reference i.e. 28.8.1990 along with full back wages from the said date. 4. As is evident, the case of the workman was that his services were terminated on 31.1.1979 in contravention of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. But the dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was regarding regularization of the services of the workman and the same has also been decided by the Labour Court in affirmative. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, impugned award dated 15.9.1992 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide as to whether the services of the workman were terminated in 1979 and if so, how the reference was made for regularization. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.7.2008 Prabodh 3