IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL W r i t P e t i t i o n N o . 1 0 7 1 o f 2 0 0 9 ( M / S) Sarseen Kum ar ………… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun and others. ………… Respondents AND W r i t P e t i t i o n N o . 1 8 5 5 o f 2 0 0 9 ( M / S) Hukam Singh ………… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun and others. ………… Respondents H o n ’b l e T a r u n Ag a r w a l a , J. Heard Mr. M.C.Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. B. S. Negi and Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a workm an and assails the validity and legality of the award dated 31st October, 2008 by which, his claim has been rejected and consequently, the order of the em ployer dated 30th March, 2009 by which his services has again been term inated. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the workm an’s services was arbitrarily term inated on 21st February, 2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the dispensation of his services raised an industrial dispute, which was ult im ately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being adjudication case no. 39/ 2006. The petitioner in the mean while, had also preferred a departm ental appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 11th March, 2008 pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service and it was directed that the petitioner would take back his case from the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court the employees appeared and gave a statement to the effect that the workman has been reinstated and nothing m ore was required to be done in this adjudication proceedings. The statement of the employer was recorded by the Labour court in it s order dated 29th April, 2008. Inspite of this order, the Labour Court proceeded exparte and dismissed the claim of the petitioner by giving an exparte award dated 31st October, 2008. Based on this exparte award, the employers again passed an order dated 30th March, 2009 dispensing his services. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, has filed the present writ petition. Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents, in term inating the services of the petitioner, was wholly arbitrary. Once the em ployer had passed an order dated 11th March, 2008 allowing the departm ental appeal and reinstating the workm an, the proceedings before the Labour Court had become infructuous, which fact was adm it ted by the employers when they recorded their statement on 29th April, 2008 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court consequently, com m it ted an error in deciding the claim against the petitioner instead of making the claim infructuous. The employers further com m it ted an error in dismissing the services of the petitioner by it s order dated 30th March, 2009 on the strength of the award of the Labour Court. I n m y opinion the order of the employers dated 30th March, 2009 was manifestly erroneous in law and was in contravention to the order dated 11th March, 2008 by which the workman namely, the petitioner was reinstated in service. I n view of the aforesaid admitted facts, which have not been controverted t ill date, this court is of the opinion that the exparte award dated 31st October, 2008 could not have been passed by the Labour Court and cannot be sustained and is quashed. Consequently, the consequential order of the employers dated 30th March, 2009 also cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be reinstate in service with continuity of service. Since the petitioner had not worked during this period, the petitioner is not entitled for back wages, but the petitioner is entitled to cost which the court computes at Rs. 10,000/ - . This amount shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today by the respondents. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 6.5.2010 Nishant