IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 324 (MS) OF 2004 U.P. Jal Nigam …………..Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another. …………..Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. 21 st July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 22.12.2003 in Adjudication case No. 3 of 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. The State Government of U.P. referred the reference under Section 4 K of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court Haldwani. The reference was to the following effect: “Whether the termination of services of his workman Prem Ram S/o Radhey Shyam, Jeep Driver from 6.2.1997 by the Employer is justified and legal? If not, to what relief / compensation the concerned employee is entitled to get?” 3. Brief facts of the case, the workman / respondent no. 2 was appointed on the post of Driver on 1.12.1988 and he performed his duty continuously upto 5.2.1997. Therefore, without any notice to the workman, the employer/ petitioner terminated the services of the workman vide order dated 6.2.1997. In his letter dated 1/2nd April, 1997, the workman requested the Employer/ petitioner to reinstate him in the service, but the same was not replied by the Employer / petitioner. Thereafter., the workman / respondent no. 2 raised industrial dispute. 4. The then State of U.P. referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the Labour Court Haldwani. 5. Notices were sent to both the parties. Both the parties filed their respective written statements. On the pleading of the parties, the Labour Court passed an award directing the Employer to reinstate the workman Prem Ram Jeep Driver along with 50% of the back wages and Rs. 1500/- litigation expenses. 6. I have gone through the record and the award passed by the labour Court. The record of the payment to the workman has not been produced by the Employer and it has been admitted that the workman / respondent no. 2 was working as Jeep Driver. Since no record was produced regarding the services rendered by the Jeep Driver by the Employer, therefore, the labour Court has recorded a finding that it is not admissible that the workman has not worked upto 240 days in a Calendar Year and the statement of the workman / respondent no. 2 is reliable that he has worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. A finding has further been recorded that while terminating the services of the workman / respondent no. 2, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have not been followed, thus, his termination is unjust and illegal. 7. I am fully convinced with the findings recorded by the labour Court while passing the award and I find no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the labour Court and the same is confirmed. It is made clear that no back wages will be payable to the respondent no. 2 / workman. 8. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour