IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 407 OF 2002 (M/S) (Old No. 29104 OF 1995) Pradeep Kumar ………..Petitioner. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun & others ………..Respondents. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned award dated 30.3.1995 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication case no. 162/1991. 2. The industrial dispute decided by the impugned award was referred in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of the services of the workman Sri Pradeep Kumar S/o Sri Bhushan Lal Agrawal from the post of conductor vide order no. 6403 dated 21.5.1990 by his employers is unjustified and/or illegal? If yes, to what relief the concern workman is entitled to and to what extent?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 18.5.1996. On 25.4.1989, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and suspended for his misconducts on two dates, namely, 15.3.1989 and 6.4.1989 on the charges as under:- “A. That the petitioner could never take the bus when the fitter certified that it was not in a fit condition. If there was any fault, it was that of the driver that he took the bus from Pauri to Karna Prayag. B. Wrong tickets were mentioned in the way bill. C. Rs. 543.50 were found with him while he was expected to have only Rs. 493.20 p. D. He removed some of the papers of checking from the room of the Inspector during night. E. The petitioner over billed in the way bill. F. On 6.4.89, 16 passengers were found without tickets while from passengers, fare had already been taken.” 4. After having proved the aforesaid charges, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the dismissal order dated 21.5.1990. Against the dismissal order dated 21.5.1990, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Dy. General Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meeru Zone, Meerut, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.1.1991. Thereafter, the dispute was taken to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun for reconciliation, who referred the dispute to the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act vide order dated 173/91 dated 16.8.1991 and the said dispute was registered as Adjudication case no. 162 of 1991 in Labour Court, Dehradun. The Labour Court, Dehradun, rejected the claim of the petitioner, hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record. 6. The award passed by the Labour Court is based on the admission of the petitioner and, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 is affirmed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour Avneet