IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 268 of 2009 With Stay Application No. 1328/2009 The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Borari, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal & another. … Petitioners Versus Sri Ganpat Lal, S/o Sri Patilal. … Respondent Mr. K.C. Tewari, Brief Holder for the petitioners/State. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. K.C. Tewari, Brief Holder for the petitioners/State. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing and disposal. The petition is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage. 3. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners/State under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned award dt. 17/5/2008 published through Govt. Order No. 3334/Award on 28/7/2008 and pasted on the notice board on 4/9/2008 passed in Adjudication Case No. 157/05 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of ad-interim mandamus staying the effect and operation of the impugned award dt. 17/5/2008 published through Govt. Order No. 3334/Award on 28/7/2008 and pasted on the notice board on 4/9/2008 passed in Adjudication Case No. 157/05 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) during pendency of the writ petition. (iii) Issue any other/further writ order or direction (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) May award cost of petition. 4. Brief fact of the case in a nutshell are that on 01.12.1999, the respondent was allegedly engaged as a mate on daily wage basis as per the requirements of the department and on 30.04.2002, his engagement was discontinued without any notice. The respondent, consequent thereto, preferred an adjudication case/petition before the Labour Court, Dehradun challenging his termination on the ground that his services have been terminated without giving any notice to him as provided under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said petition was contested by the Employer on the ground that from 01.12.1999 till 30.4.2002, the respondent for different period worked as daily wager in the department whenever the work has available and after completion of the work, he was discontinued and as such the respondent had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months. The Labour Court vide its order dated 17.05.2008, held that the respondent was illegally terminatied from the service and passed an award in favour of the respondent directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service and further, for payment of 50 % of the back wages to the respondent. The learned Labour Court further certificate mentioning therein that the respondent had worked continuously in the department in the capacity of mate since 01.12.1999 till 30.04.2002 and thus, the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months. The said award was published on 28.7.2008 and pasted on the notice board on 04.9.2008. 5. The aforesaid award has been challenged by the petitioner/State by way of this petition. 6. The learned Brief Holder for the petitioners/State contended that; the respondent was engaged purely on temporary basis keeping in view the requirements of the department; since, no such requirement or work was available any further, as such the respondent was disengaged; at the time of the engagement, no appointment letter was given to the respondent; the employment/engagement automatically comes to an end, the moment when there was no work available in the departmental for which the workman was employed; and the respondent had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months, as such the said award given by the Labour Court is against the provisions of law. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions of the learned Brief Holder for the petitioners/State. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is apparent from the said award passed by the learned Labour Court that the respondent was also examined before it and he proved the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer-Mangat Singh. The State was also given an opportunity to adduce the evidence the Labour Court. The State had produced Ajmar Singh as a witness before it and this witness had admitted Assistant Engineer-Mangat Singh. It has come in the petition as well as in respondent-Ganpat Lal had worked continuously from 01.12.1999 till 30.04.2002 but in the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer-Mangat Singh, it is mentioned that the respondent-Ganpat Lal had worked continuously in the capacity of Mate since 01.12.1999 till 30.04.2004. The said certificate is reproduced below: i=kad% dSEi@eSeks fn0 22-1-2005 izek.k&Ik= ^^izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh x.kir yky iq= Jh ifryky fuoklh xzke dksjnh] iks0vks0 xSjh ¼jktiqr½ ftyk fVgjh x<+oky us izkUrh; [k.M yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ckSjkMh ubZ fVgjh] ftyk fVgjh esa fnukad 01-12-99 ls fnukad 30-4-2004 rd dk;Zy; vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj esV@csynkj ds in ij yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA ** g0 @& lgk;d vfHk;Urk izk0[k.M yks0fu0fo0 ckSjkM+h] ubZ fVgjh 10. The above certificate clearly indicates that the respondent had worked continuously for a period more than 240 days as provided under the provisions of the Act. The contentions of the learned Brief Holder are inconsistent with the certificate issued by the officer of its department. The State had an opportunity to explain the certificate by way of producing the Assistant Engineer Mangat Singh before the Labour court who had issued the certificate in the case but the State did not produce the Assistant Engineer-Mangat Singh before the court below. 11. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the said award passed by the Labour Court. Thus, the petition devoids of merit and is dismissed in limine. The stay application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 26.02.2009 V.K.