Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.251 of 2002 Divisional Forest Officer Soil Conservation, Van Prabhag, Uttarkashi. ………. Petitioner Versus Heera Lal and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.C.Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned award dated 31.01.2001 passed by the respondent No.2/LabourCourt in Adjudication Case No.156 of 2000 contained inannexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. On a dispute raised by the workman the U.P. Government vide notification dated 02.9.2000 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3. Before the Labour Court the workman pleaded that he had worked with effect from 01.09.1984 continuously on the post of Chaukidar in the office of petitioner/employer but on 26.07.1994 his services were terminated without any prior notice and pay and compensation in lieu of notice has also not been to him. 2 It was also stated by the workman that juniors to him are also working in the department. 4. The petitioner admitted that the workman /respondent No.1 had worked in the department during the period 01.07.1985 to April 1994 on daily wages and thereafter he had left the job at his own. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the workman has wrongly been terminated from service and passed order for his reinstatement without any back wages but awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the workman. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the workman was engaged by the department on the post of Chaukidar and he has worked more than 240 days in every calendar year. I find no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The labour court has recorded finding of fact which calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh