COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 277/2007 State of Uttarakhand & Others …….Petitioners Versus Anil Kumar Rasauni & Other …….Respondents Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Gopal Narain, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 1. 7th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 14.8.2006 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. 1 was working as a Helper in the establishment of petitioners since 1.5.1984. His name was removed from the muster roll w.e.f. 30.9.1988. Workman was not given any notice or information before removing his name from the muster roll. Juniors to the workman continued to work in the department and fresh recruitments were also made by the department. Petitioner 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 terminating the services of its employee Sri Anil Kumar Rasauni, Helper w.e.f. 2 20.9.1988 is improper/illegal? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court vide award dated 26.2.2001 answered the aforesaid reference in negative against the workman and in favour of the petitioners and held that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. Against the aforesaid award dated 26.2.2001, workman preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2005 and the dispute was remanded back to the Labour Court for decision afresh. This Court while remanding the dispute observed that the Labour Court did not consider the plea of the workman that juniors to him were retained while terminating the services of the workman, which is in contravention of the provisions contained under Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. After remand of the case, the Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced on record, answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman/respondent no. 1 and against the petitioners and ordered for reinstatement of the workman. The Labour Court also awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the workman in lieu of the back wages. Hence, this petition. 5. The Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding that the services of the workman/respondent no. 1 were terminated in contravention of the provisions contained under Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and 3 the same is against the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah & Anr. reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 592. 6. The Labour Court has examined the matter in great detail and passed the impugned award after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 7.8.2008 Prabodh