IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4905 of 2001 (Old No.23813 of 1996) Suresh Chandra Tripathi ……….. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ……… Respondents …………….. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 08.09.1995 passed by the respondent No.1 which was published on 15.03.1996. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he was employed in the establishment of respondent No.2 on 16.01.1982 and was discharged from his duties on 30.09.1989 after giving three months’ notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were terminated violating the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the petitioner sought reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication by the Labour Court. 3. The Labour Court has relied upon Section 2 (1) (bb) as well as the agreement between the parties dated 11.02.1985 and justified the termination order. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement between the parties which has taken place on 11th February, 1989 was null and void as the same was against the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as it will also amount to interfere labour practice. 5. The Respondent No.2 has also relied upon the agreement dated 11th February, 1989 and according to Clause 5 of the said agreement the service of the petitioner was terminated by paying three month’s notice. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a case U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. versus Om Prakash Upadhyay, reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (L & S), Page 77, and has relied upon observations that Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act is not to be attracted as the said provision is not in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In view of above contentions of the parties, I think it is a fit case for remand. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is quashed. The case is remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh