COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 13B/2000 (Old No. 35445/1995) Garhwal Jal Sansthan …….Petitioner Versus Labour Court-I, Dehradun And Other. …….Respondents Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 2 4th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 26.6.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in adjudication case no. 53 of 1991 allowing the claim of the workman/respondent no. 2 for reinstatement along with full back wages. The impugned award is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the workman was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Accounts Clerk. Workman applied for grant of leave and availed the same in different spells. When he reported on duty on 15.4.1986, he was not allowed to resume his duties. Workman was transferred to Uttarkashi on 25.6.1984 but he was not served with the transfer order by the department. Since the workman was not allowed to resume his duties, he raised a dispute on 26.9.1986 before the Conciliation Officer. While the conciliation proceedings were going on, 2 the workman was chargesheeted on 27.3.1987. An ex parte enquiry was conducted against the workman and his services were terminated vide order dated 12.10.1987. Under these facts and circumstances, the following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Sri R.P. Gupta from the post of Accounts Clerk vide order no. 3273 dated 12.10.1987 was illegal and/or unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration all the documentary and oral evidence adduced on record, answered the reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the employer/petitioner. The Labour Court accordingly ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with full back wages. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. The Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was not fair and, therefore, it was bad. The workman was not informed about the dates fixed in the enquiry proceedings. The employer failed to prove before the Labour Court that the workman was served with the transfer order dated 26.6.1984. Labour Court also held that the allegation against the workman that he was on unauthorized leave is not proved as no decision was taken by the department itself on the leave applications submitted by the workman. Neither the leave applications of the workman were allowed nor the same were rejected. Had there been any anomaly in the disputed leave applications of the 3 workman, the same should have been rejected by the department and thereafter the workman should have been called upon to report on duty accordingly. Moreover, workman was not served with the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer before taking the final decision by the disciplinary authority. The employer/petitioner miserably failed to prove its case before the court below. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned award dated 26.6.1995 passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. 5. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper not to award any back wages to the workman/respondent no. 2. The impugned award dated 26.6.1995 is modified to this extent accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 4.8.2008 Prabodh