IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 387 of 2006 (S/B) Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar through Its Executive Director ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Sukut s/o Anat R/o Village: Tikampar Kotwa, Post Bihar Bugurg, District Kushi Nagar, U.P. 2. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. ....... Respondents ........ Mr. R.K.Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. K.P.Upadhyaya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Coram : Hon’ble V.K.Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S.Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what emerges is that respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 in favour of respondent no. 1 and against the writ petitioner in purported exercise of the jurisdiction purportedly vesting in him in terms of 1958 Standing Orders, whereas it is undisputed case of the parties that at the time of the initiation of the proceedings as well as the passing of the aforesaid order, the Standing Order issued vide Notification No. 5692(HI)/XXXVI- 2-110(HI)-77 dated 27th September, 1988 had come into force. 2. It is further undisputed case of the parties that it is in terms of the aforesaid 1988 Standing Orders that respondent no. 2 had the jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to the correction of the ‘Date of Birth’ of respondent no. 1. 3. By invoking 1958 Standing Orders as well as by exercising the jurisdiction under the said Standing Orders, respondent no. 2 had committed a patent illegality and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction. 4. Based on the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the parties, agree that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 be set aside only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for the aforesaid reason and the matter be remitted to him for reconsideration by exercising jurisdiction under 1988 Standing Orders. 5. Based on the aforesaid agreement between the parties, we allow the petition and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2, direct him to reconsider the matter on its merits and in accordance with law and passing a fresh speaking order. 6. The parties are directed to appear through their counsel before respondent no. 2 on 28.02.2008. Respondent no. 2 is directed to dispose of the matter finally within a period of four months. 7. Based on the aforesaid order, we have not gone into any issue relating to vires. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 12.02.2008 12.02.2008 A