COURT NO. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 358/2004 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation …….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Haldwani & Others …….Respondents Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2/1 to 2/6. 30 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity of the award dated 24.03.2003 (Annexure-1) made under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Workman Late Sri Bhagwat Singh was appointed in September, 1979 on the post of Driver. His services were terminated by the order dated 31.5.1995 on the ground that he was absent from his duties on 3.12.1990 and that he consumed liquor during duty hours. Workman raised an industrial dispute and appropriated Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The following reference was made. Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Sri Bhagwat Singh S/o Mangal Singh w.e.f. 31.5.1995 is proper and/ or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. After considering the materials available on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the petitioner and ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. The Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was not proper and fair. The Labour Court further held that the charge of consuming liquor during duty hours is not proved. As regards unauthorized absence from duty on 3.12.1990, the workman was on leave on the said date as he was not well. The Labour Court has also observed that on the one hand, workman was charged with consuming liquor during duty hours and on the other hand, he was never suspended and continued to work until his services were terminated on 31.5.1995. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the same does not require any interference by this Court. Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed. Impugned award dated 24.3.2003 passed by the Labour Court is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh