IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1532 of 2007 (M/S) Balbir Singh S/o Chuhal Singh ..……… Petitioner. Versus Prescribed Authority and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Jagdish Singh Bisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court. The State Govt. referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The terms of the reference order was :- “Whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 16th October, 1991? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to? The petitioner/workman contended before the Labour Court that he was appointed on 4th January, 1987 and worked continuously without any interruption till 16th October, 1991 when his services was terminated by an oral order. The petitioner contended that no retrenchment compensation was paid before dispensing his services. The petitioner, consequently, contended that the order of termination was wholly illegal and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full backwages. The employers, in the written statement, submitted that the workman had worked intermittently and had never worked 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, was not entitled for retrenchment compensation. The employers further contended 2 that the services of the petitioner was never terminated and that he had left the services on his own accord. Before the Labour Court, the employers produced the attendance and payment register, namely, the muster roll register for the period 1st January, 1990 to 16th October, 1991. Other document for the previous year was also produced at the behest of an application filed by the workman. On the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the employers, the Labour Court concluded that the workman had worked for few months and had not worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Labour Court further found that from 1st January, 1990 to 16th October, 1991, the petitioner had only worked for two months and had not completed 240 days in a calendar year. The Labour Court, consequently, submitted that there has been no illegal retrenchment at the behest of the employers and that the workman was not entitled for any relief. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that earlier an ex-parte award was made by the Labour Court and that the said award was subsequently recalled upon an application filed by the employers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award became enforceable after the expiry of one month from the date of publication of the award and the said award could not have been recalled on an application filed by the employers after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of publication of the award. The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court had become functus officio and, therefore, could not entertain the application nor could have recalled the ex-parte award. 3 In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Such submission cannot be considered by this court, in much as, the order of the Labour Court recalling the ex-parte award has not been questioned in this petition. No other ground has been raised. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.04.2010 Shiv