Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1396 of 2007 (Old No.38780 of 1999) Uttar Pradesh Sate Road Transport Corporation, Tanakpur District Champawat through its Regional Manager. …………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital And others. ………… Respondents. ……………. Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narian, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Date: July 24,2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the impugned award dated 27.10.1998 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.102 of 1992, which was published on 24.04.1999. 2. On the dispute raised by the workman, a reference was made by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner Kumaon Region, Haldwani District Nainital before the Labour Court, which was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No.102 of 1992. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of services of workman Sri Shiv Dutt Sanwal S/o Sri Urba Dutt Sanwal, Junior Station Incharge by the employers since 01.03.1990 is legal and proper? If no, to which relief the workman is entitled to get?” 3. Notices were issued to the parties. They filed their written statements and objections and led their evidence before the Labour Court. 4. The workman denied the allegations levelled against him. According to the workman, he joined his service in the establishment of petitioner Corporation on 08.08.1963. The Screening Committee has illegally passed the order of his compulsory retirement on 01.03.1990 without hearing him and giving any reason. Six years were left for his service. 5. The employers took the plea before the Labour Court that the services of the workman were not found satisfactory according to his service record. There were serval adverse entries in his character roll. Despite serval warning he did not improve his work. The decision taken by the Screening Committee giving him compulsory retirement is legal and valid according to rules. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. The Labour Court has recorded its finding on the basis of fact and evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 24.07.2008 P.Singh