IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2002 (MS) (Old No. 19171 of 1998) The Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. …………..Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another. …………Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no.1. None appears for the respondent no. 2. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.4.1997 passed by respondent no. 1 in adjudication Case No. 56 of 1995 and order dated 14.5.1998, whereby the restoration application of the petitioner was rejected. 2. A dispute was referred, vide notification No. 6404- 07 M.R.I.R.-(Sandarbh) C.P. No. 78(s)/94 dated 19.5.1995 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 56 /95. The reference was made in the following terms: “Whether the termination of services of Workman Sri Ram Gopal S/o Sri Paltu Ram with effect from 21.10.1994 is justified and / or legal, if not, to what benefit/relief the concerned employee is entitled to and to what extent?” 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 was working as a labourer from the year, 1985-86 in the Mill of the petitioner. From 21.10.1994, work was not taken from him though he was going to the Mill of the petitioner and his services were terminated without giving him prior notice. The case of the respondent no. 2 before the labour Court was that without giving him prior notice, his services were terminated, which is illegal as he has not been paid any salary of compensation in lieu of the notice. The Labour Court, after considering the material available on record, found that the respondent no. 2 has worked for one season, therefore, he became entitled to work in the next season. The Labour Court has relied upon the statement of the witness of petitioner Sri Ram Avtar, wherefrom, it appears that there is need of season Donga Labourer. Labour Court has held that taking no work from the respondent no. 2 in 1994-95 by the Employer though he was present, was unjustified and illegal. Labour Court after recording the said finding directed to reinstate the respondent no. 2 in the next season and also directed the petitioner to pay back wages and retaining wage along with litigation expenses of Rs. 500/-. 4. Thereafter, the employer filed a restoration application for recalling the award passed by the learned Labour Court. The same was dismissed on 14.5.1998. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record as well as the impugned award. 3 6. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent no. 2 had never worked in its Mill. It has further been alleged that the Commissioner Meerut is not competent for reference. Witness of the Employer Mr. Ram Avtar has stated that there is need of Donga Labourer in every season. The working of the respondent no. 2 as Donga Labourer becomes clear from the Clearance Slip dated 4.6.1991, 8.7.1992 and 24.3.1994, whereupon the name of the Employer is mentioned and the signatures of the Issue Clerk and Store Keeper, and the name of the workman are mentioned. 7. For the reasons recorded above, I find no error in the award passed by the Labour Court and the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court dated 30.4.1997&14.5.1998 are affirmed. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour