Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.248 of 2002 Garhwal Jal Sansthan through its General Manager, Ja Bhawan, Nehru Colony, Dehradun and others. …….. Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri M.C.Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No2. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 21.11.2001 passed by Labour Court, Dehradun in Industrial Dispute No. 165 of 1999, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. On the dispute raised by the workman, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, through reference order No.5451-58/Dehradun-C.P.91/98 dated 23.06.1999 which was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No.165 of 1999. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of services of workman Sri Sewa Ram S/o Inder Singh, Pump Operator by the employers with effect from 2 15.08.1998 is unjustified and illegal? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to get?” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the workman was initially appointed in the department as a tube-well Operator on 01.6.1994. His services were terminated on 15.08.1998 by an oral order without prior notice. No appointment letter was issued to the workman at the time of his appointment and he has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. 4. Before the Labour Court the employers submitted reply referring therein two Government Orders dated 06.12.1991 and 16.05.1995 which were in respect of engagement of daily wager employees/work charge employees whereby a ban was imposed for the engagement of employees and directions were issued that the additional work will be carried out by way of contract. The petitioners also stated that the workman had never been engaged by them, however, the work for operating the tube-well was performed through a contract who engage labourers for performing the contract work 5. Labour Court has recorded its finding that the workman has completed 240 days regularly from the year 1994 and he is entitled to have the protection of provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination of the workman was held illegal and reinstated the workman in service with full back wages. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. It is 3 not disputed that the workman was engaged by the department on the post of Pump Operator and he has worked more than 240 days in every year upto his termination. The petitioners took shelter of Government Order dated 16.05.1995 while the Tubewell was operating much prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order. The labour court has recorded finding of fact which calls for no interference. I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. However, the petitioner shall not be paid any back wages. The writ petition is liable to be allowed in part. 7. The writ petition is allowed in part accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh