Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.755 of 2001 (Old No.33605 of 1996) Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority through its Secretary, 10, Preetam Road, Dehradun. ………. Petitioner Versus Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh Dehradun through its Presiding Officer and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Rahul Consul Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned award dated 30th June, 1995 passed by the respondent No.1/Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.155 of 1993 contained in annexure No.6 to the writ petition. 2. On a dispute raised by the workman, the U.P. Government vide notification dated 29.08.1990 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3. Before the Labour Court the workman pleaded that he was appointed by the employers on 1st June, 1989 on the post of Process Surveyer and since then he has been serving continuously on the said post but on 03.09.1992 his services were terminated without any 2 prior notice and pay and compensation in lieu of notice which is illegal. 4. The petitioner’s pleaded that the workman /respondent No.2 was employed on daily wages in the department and it was not necessary to serve him notice or compensation in lieu of notice. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the workman has wrongly been terminated from service and passed order for his reinstatement with back wages. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service the respondent No.2 did not turn up. It is not disputed that the workman was engaged by the employer and he has worked continuously more than one year. The Labour Court has recorded its finding that under the industrial law if any employee completed 240 days in a calendar year his services cannot be terminated without completing the procedure prescribed under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and from the evidence it has become clear that the provision of Sec. 6-N has been violated. I find no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded finding of fact which calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh