COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 7550/2001 (Old No. 6369/1995) U.P. State Electricity Board & Other …….Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani And Others …….Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 3. 7th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 15.9.1992 and the order dated 13.12.1994 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the workman/respondent no. 2, Diwan Singh worked in the petitioners’ department from 1.4.1977 to 31.1.1979. His services were terminated on 31.1.1979. Workman was neither given any notice nor pay in lieu of the notice nay any compensation before terminating his services. The services of junior candidates to the workman/respondent no. 2 were regularized ignoring the claim of the workman/respondent no. 2. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and under these facts and circumstances, the appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: 2 Whether the action of the employer in not regularizing the services of its workman Diwan Singh, Muster Roll Employee on the post of Coolie is improper and/or illegal? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court vide award dated 15.9.1992 answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the petitioners and held that the workman had worked as muster roll employee in the petitioners’ establishment from 1.4.1977 to 31.1.1979. The court below has also held that it is proved beyond doubt that muster roll employees were regularized in between the period of termination of the workman and reference of the present dispute and accordingly directed the employer that workman be regularized on the post of Coolie with effect from the date of reference of the dispute i.e. 28.8.1990. The Labour Court also ordered for payment of full back wages to the workman with effect from 28.8.1990 within 30 days from the date of enforcement of the award. The impugned award was published on 24.9.1992. 4. When the impugned award after its publication was not given effect to by the petitioners, the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) and 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for implementation of the award. On this application, notice vide the impugned order dated 13.12.1994 was issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3 5. I have carefully perused the record. I am of the opinion that in the light of the facts that have come on record, I find no perversity or patent illegality in the award of the Labour Court and on the contrary must appreciate that it has minutely examined the evidence in arriving at its decision. In this view of the matter, the impugned award requires no interference by this Court. 6. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 7.8.2008 Prabodh