Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/B) No.750/2002 Gopeshwar Prasad Raturi …….. Petitioner Versus Vice President, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, 12 Preetam Road, Dehradun. …….. Respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Date: April 29, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2002 terminating the services of the petitioner, contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was given employment as Driver on 02.08.1987 and since then he was working with the respondent. On 30.06.1989 his services were terminated orally without giving any notice or any compensation according to provisions of U.P. 2 Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner had challenged his termination by raising an industrial dispute. The Labour Court held the termination of the petitioner illegal and unjustified and directed for reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent challenged the said award before the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.21706 of 1996. In pursuance of the interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated 13.05.1997 the petitioner was reinstated in service and since then he was working with the respondent. On 15.05.2002 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent in which explanation was called on 13.05.2002 when the petitioner was not found on duty. He replied the said notice on 16.05.2002 that on 13.05.2002 he was fallen ill and he had given the key of car to another driver Sri Girish Saklani in the office. On 23.05.2002 the respondent passed order terminating the services of the petitioner. The said order is punitive in nature and based on a charge which was leveled without holding any inquiry or giving him any opportunity of hearing. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits exchanged between them. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that the award passed by the Labour Court in the industrial dispute has been affirmed by the High Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Further, in Para 6 to the counter affidavit the respondent itself admitted that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and wages have been paid to him on humanitarian grounds. The respondent further stated that since the petitioner 3 has been reinstated in service, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of. 4. In view of above statement in the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (P.C.Verma,J.) 29.04.2008 P.Singh 4