COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 2033/2001 (Old No. 3497/1997) Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar …….Petitioner Versus Kameshwar Prasad Tyagi & Other …….Respondents Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 1. 30th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity of the award dated 5.4.1996 (Annexure- 1) made under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Respondent no. 1 Sri Kameshwar Prasad Tyagi was working as a Clerk in Gurukul Kangri University since 1972. His services were terminated by the order dated 26.6.1986 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. Workman raised an industrial dispute and appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Sri Kameshwar Tyagi w.e.f. 26.6.1986 is improper and/or illegal? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 2 3. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman/respondent no. 1 and against the petitioner and ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. The Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding that the services of the workman/respondent no. 1 were terminated without holding any disciplinary enquiry. The Labour Court further held that the workman had proceeded on leave which was duly sanctioned and no decision could be taken by the employer on his subsequent leave application. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the same does not require any interference by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it proper to award any back wages to the workman/respondent no. 1. However, workman shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of the award i.e. 5.4.1996 till the date of his superannuation. The impugned award dated 5.4.1996 is modified to the extent indicated above. 6. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh