Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4902 of 2001 (Old No.23121 of 1996) The State of U.P. through the Superintending Engineer, 27 Circle Lok Nirman Vibhag, New Tehri. …………….. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Dehradun and another. …………. Respondents. …………………. Sri Gopal Narain, leaned Brief Holder for the State on behalf of petitioner. Sri M.C.Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: July 24,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 01.03.1995 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.128 of 1991, which was notified on 04.07.1995. 2. Prior to the reorganization of existing State of Uttar Pradesh, a dispute was referred, vide notification No. 8162-67 (Labour Commissioner) 1/36-Labour (1) C.B.88/88, Dehradun dated 17.07.1991 under Section 4- K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, containing a list of 27 daily wage employees. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the services of the 27 daily wage employees, contained in the enclosed list, should have been declared regular? If yes, then under what rule and which details?” 2 3. The dispute was raised by the P.W.D. muster- roll workmen union, Dehradun. Notices were issued to the parties. They filed their written statements and objections and led their evidence before the Labour Court. 4. According to the workmen, they were working on muster-roll since last more than three years on daily wages from different dates and were entitled to be regularized on the work charge establishment. 5. The employer almost admitted his case before the Labour Court. The Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding on the basis of documentary evidence that these employees have been working since more than three years and the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D. also accepted that the services of these employees should have been regularized. 6. The Labour court has recorded finding of fact which cannot be interfered in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. 7. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 24.07.2008 P.Singh