Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.982 of 2001 (Old No.14563 of 1998) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Dehradun. …….. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Sri Rajeev Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent No2. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 28.10.1996 which was published on 18.09.1997 passed by Labour Court, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. Certain charges of quarrelling, abusing, misbehaving with colleagues and senior officials and indiscipline were levelled against the respondent No.2/ workman. He was suspended from service on 30.09.1994 and an inquiry was conducted against him. The workman had been afforded full opportunity of haring. The charges were found proved against him and he was removed from service on 20.09.1995. The workman raised a dispute and the State Government, vide notification dated 11.07.1996 referred the dispute to the 2 Industrial Tribunal for adjudication which was registered as Adjudication Case No.68 of 1996. 3. Before the Labour court the petitioner has contested the case. The parties did not dispute the veracity of the departmental inquiry before the Labour Court. Only the quantum of punishment was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour court after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence reduced the punishment and reinstated the workman in service with minor punishment keeping in view the nature of charges levelled against him. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. The Labour Court has rightly held that the punishment of removal from service is excessive and harsh and committed no mistake in set asiding the removal of workman /respondent No.2 from service. I find no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh