COURT NO. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 7284/2001 (Old No. 11282/1996) U.P. State Electricity Board & Other ……Petitioners Versus Bhagwan Singh & Other ……Respondents Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri M.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 1. 1 st July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 29.7.1995 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. 1 was engaged as a Coolie Helper in the establishment of petitioners on daily wages w.e.f. 1.1.1984 and worked continuously since then and as such, he had completed 240 days. But his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.1.1985 without any prior notice. He was neither paid any pay in lieu of the notice nor any compensation. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and under these facts and circumstances, the appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Bhawan Singh S/o Sri Babulal, Coolie Helper w.e.f. 1.1.1985 is proper and/or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court vide its award dated 29.7.1995 answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the employer and held that the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, termination of his services is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Labour Court 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 services of the workman/respondent no. 1 were terminated in contravention of the provision contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It has also come in the deposition of the workman that one Sri Madan was given regular appointment after the termination of the services of the workman. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned award that the employer/petitioners did not produce the muster roll from the period September, 1984 to December, 1984 before the Labour Court and, therefore, Labour Court rightly drawn adverse inference against the employer. 5. The Labour Court has examined the matter in great detail and passed the impugned award after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 1.7.2008 Prabodh