Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.448 of 2002 Subhash Tyagi and another ………… Petitioners Versus Deputy Labour Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun and others. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner have challenged the order dated 26.09.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in Misc.Case No.372 of 2001, contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. 2. An application under Section 11C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has been filed on behalf of employees union of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Local Bus Stand Dehradun in which it has been stated that the work which has been assigned to the petitioners has not been taken from them. The Regional Manager by his order dated 08.5.1998 had deputed them to work as Conductor but the Station Superintendent has passed order superceding the order of Regional Manager and deputed them in another work other than the work of Conductor. 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Labour Court has passed the order in light of Regulation 76 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 in which the appointing authority has been authorized to give suitable work to the employees who become incapable due to some injuries received during the course of duty. It is admitted that the Regional Manager is appointing authority of the petitioners. The Station Superintendent has no authority to alter or change in the order of Regional Manager. The finding given by the Labour Court is finding of fact which calls for no interference by this court. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued in this case. 3. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh