IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2010 (M/S) U.P.State Warehousing Corporation Lucknow, Regional Office Dehradun, Uttarakhand, through its Regional Manager. …… Petitioner. Versus Virendra Kumar S/O Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, R/O Noorpur, Hati, Post Sadpur, Bijnor. … Respondent. Mr. T.A.Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C.Pande, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date July 08, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/award dated 18-1-2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court), Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital (for short Tribunal) in Adjudication Case No. 23 of 2005 (Annexure-1 to the petition). By the impugned award, it was held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service. The employer was directed to reinstate the workman in service along with 25% back-wages with effect from 6-1-2003 till his reinstatement. The petitioner is a warehousing corporation and provides the facility of warehousing at different places in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. According to the petitioner, in the year 1999-2000 and 2001-02, the crops of food-grains were bumper and were in good condition. The Central Government as well as the State Government had sponsored some planning for the proper storage and purchase of food grains. During that period, the petitioner 2 engaged the respondent as a labourer purely on temporary basis for doing the work in go-downs as daily wager on day-to-day basis. No appointment was made as per Rules and the respondent had not worked continuously for 240 days or more. When the necessity of work came to an end, the services of the respondent were discontinued and dispensed with. There was no need to engage any extra hand. Aggrieved by the order of termination of services, the respondent-workman approached the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner concerned. The dispute was referred by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the Act) to the Tribunal for adjudication whether the termination of services of Sri Prakash Chandra Bhatt son of Sri Mohan Chandra Bhatt, daily-wage workman by the employers w.e.f. 6-1-2003 was legal and proper? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with details? According to the workman-respondent, he had worked in the employment of the petitioner as a daily wage labourer from 25-7-2001 continuously till 5-1-2003. On 6-1-2003, when the workman attended his duty, he was refused to continue in his service orally and his services were terminated by the employer without any notice or wages in lieu of notice. He was not paid any compensation for retrenchment. The termination order is illegal and unjustified. The workman also alleged that no reason has been assigned for his termination and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The provisions of the Act have not been adhered to. The O.P.-petitioner filed its written statement alleging that the petitioner was not heard prior to making the reference and that there is no relation of master and servant between the employer and the workman. It is also alleged that the date of termination of service has been mentioned fictitiously and no cause of action has 3 arisen for the dispute. It is also alleged that the workman was never appointed in the employment hence there is no question of termination of service. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-workman examined himself on oath. The workman has stated that he was employed in the employment on 25-7-2001 as daily wage labourer and he worked upto 5-1-2003 and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. On 6-1-2003, he was refused to continue on his work by the employer. He also proved the documents in support of his case before the Tribunal. He was cross-examined. In his cross-examination he has admitted that permission was being taken by the officers for every three months regarding his employment. On behalf of the employer, Sri Nanda Ballabh, warehouse superintendent (D.W.1) was examined. In his testimony, he has stated that workmen Yamuna Datt, Pan Singh Rautela, Virendra Kumar, Prakash Chandra Bhatt, Tej Singh Kanwal were casual labourers and Rajendra Singh used to work as casual-labourer. He has specifically stated that Rajendra Singh was employed on 21-7-1999 and he was terminated/discharged on 9-10- 2002. He also stated that Yamuna Datt, workman was employed on 1-5-1999 and he was discharged from service on 9-10-2002. Pan Singh Rautela was employed on 24-4-2000 and he was terminated on 9-10-2002. Virendra Kumar was employed on 25-7-2001 and he was discharged on 6-1-2003. Prakash Chandra Bhatt was employed on 1-8-99 and he was discharged on 1-6-2002. Tej Singh Kanwal was employed on 7-5-1999 and he was discharged on 9-10- 2002. He however stated that all these workmen were employed temporarily on account of bulk of workload and that they were not appointed as per departmental rules. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that there was no complaint or charges against the workmen and no enquiry was set up against them. He 4 also stated that the workmen were not given retrenchment compensation. He further stated that the work in the warehouse is still going on. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and on the basis of attendance register, has given a categorical finding that the workman-respondent had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The petitioner is covered by the definition of industry. He also found that there is no compliance of Section 6-N of the Act and the respondent-workman was neither given any notice nor retrenchment allowance for which he was entitled. The learned Tribunal ultimately directed the employer to reinstate the workman in service with 25% back- wages, vide impugned award, which gave rise to the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record including the impugned award. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was a purely temporary casual labour is concerned, the same is not tenable for the simple reason that the learned Industrial on the basis of the attendance register as well as the statement of the own witness of the petitioner, who is Superintendent in the Warehouse i.e., D.W. 1 Nanda Ballabh, has specifically held that the workman respondent had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year throughout his service. The learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the contention that the appointment of the workman was purely casual and temporary nature. It does not stand to reason why a casual labour would be employed for a continuous period 25-7-2001 to 5-1-2003. Moreover, the assertion made by the employer in its written statement is belied in view of the on oath testimony of D.W.1 before the Tribunal. 5 From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is obvious that Nanda Ballabh (D.W. 1), who is the own witness of the petitioner-employer, has categorically stated on oath in his examination-in-chief that the respondent-workman had worked from 25-7-2001 to 5-1-2003. The petitioner has not shown before the Tribunal that D.W.1 was in any manner hostile to the interest of petitioner. No such pleading has been made in the writ petition. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner is an industry has also not been disputed. The finding given by the Tribunal are based on the muster roll and other evidence as well as on oath testimony of the D.W.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year is a finding of fact, which is based on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence led before the Tribunal. It is well settled that the finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated by the writ court like a court of appeal. It is not disputed that the respondent was not paid any retrenchment compensation or wages in lieu of statutory notice. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition being devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP