Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2030 of 2001 (Old No.43359 of 1997) Kunwar Pal Singh ……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ……… Respondents ……………….. Sri M.C.Pant, learned counsel petitioner. Sri V.K.Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the award dated 04.10.1996 published on 12.09.1997, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.10.1989 on the post of Assistant Fitter with the respondent No.2 as a permanent employee. The petitioner was the leader of registered Trade Union and he protected the interest of workers in view of Section 6 E of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He agitated for some demand in the interest of workers due to this the respondent No.2 became annoyed with the petitioner. With the malafide intention the respondent No.2 framed charges against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was suspended from service. Inquiry proceedings were initiated against him. The conciliation proceedings between the parties were also failed. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication which was registered as Adjudication Case No.4 of 1995. The petitioner pleaded his case before the Labour Court that the inquiry was not conducted fairly by the Inquiry officer and the Inquiry Officer also did not provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The employer contested the case before the Labour Court and stated that the workman/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Fitter with effect from 01.04.1991 in their establishment and since then his work and conduct was not found satisfactory. Several times he was warned but he did 2 not improve himself. The petitioner was chargesheeted on 27.10.1993. Eight charges were framed against him. In the inquiry opportunity for hearing was given to him. Most of the charges were found proved against him and keeping in view the seriousness of the charges the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.02.1994. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner protected the interest of employees. Thus, without prior permission of the court the petitioner cannot be dismissed or removed from service and the respondent No.2 violated the provision of Section 6-E (3) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has already dealt with this point by framing issue No.3 in the award as under:- Whether the petitioner/workman was protected workman? If yes, its effect? 5. The Labour Court has elaborately dealt with this issue and recorded its finding that in the present case in no case it can be said that provision of Section 6-E (3) has been violated. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing. I find that the Labour Court has not committed any error of law and the matter is concluded by finding of fact. The writ petition is liable tobe dismissed. 6. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the question relating to seeking permission is left open to be decided in appropriate case. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh