Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 370 of 2005 (Old No.28210 of 1998) Matwar Singh ……. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents …………………… Sri P.C. Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Pradeep Lohani, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: July 31, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner / workman has challenged the impugned award dated 28.10.1997 passed by the Labour Court, contained as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition, which was published on 03.06.1998. 2. On the dispute raised by the workman, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, through reference order No.156/161/Dehradun-C.P./4/Kotdwara /96 dated 07.01.1997 which was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No.29 of 1997. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of services of workman Sri Matwar Singh, Machine Operator by the employers with effect from 22.08.1993 is unjustified and illegal? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to get?” 3. The case of the workman in nutshell is that he was engaged on the post of Machine Operator in the employer establishment on 01.08.1986 and since then he continued satisfactorily on the said post. On 22.08.1993 his services were terminated without prior notice and he has not been paid one month’s salary and retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice. It was also the case of the workman that juniors to him were retained in the service, while the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with arbitrarily. 4. The employers’ case is that he workman employed in their establishment in January 1993. He worked in the establishment till 21.08.1993 and thereafter he has left the job at his own and did not turn up for duty. The employers denied that they terminated the petitioner from service. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has recorded its finding contrary to the evidence adduced by the petitioner as also adopted an erroneous approach in the matter. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year and he is entitled to have the protection of provision of Section 6-N of the U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. I find it is a fit case for remand to the Labour Court for decision afresh in the light of evidence, oral as well as documentary, adduced by the parties. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The case is remanded back to the Labour Court for decision afresh within a period of three months after giving opportunity for hearing to the parties. (P.C. Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh