IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2030 of 2011 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Irrigation, Dehradun. 2. Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee through Research Officer, Hydraulics Division-3. … Petitioners. Versus Naresh Kumar @ Billu, S/O Sri Puran through Sri Hari Shanker Jauhari, A-50 Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar. … Respondent. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the petitioners-State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date September 28, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) (Stay Application No. 10138 of 2011) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have hought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 20-8-2010 (Annexure-1) published and pasted on the notice board on 20-4-2011, passed by Labour Court Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 437 of 2009 (Old No. 28 of 2007), Naresh Kumar @ Billu Vs. M/s Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the workman Naresh Kumar alias Billu had worked with the employers-M/s Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee from 4-3- 1982 to 24-2-1989. During his service, he was engaged from time to time to do work as daily wager. The services of the workman were terminated by the employer. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 4(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute reads as under:- Whether the termination of the services of workman Naresh Kumar alias Billu by the employer was justified or/and 2 legal. If not, to what relief is the workman is entitled to get/benefits? Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his written statement and asserted that the workman was engaged as daily wager by the employer from 4-3-1982 to 24-2-1989 and he performed his duty with full dedication and honesty. On 24-2- 1989, his services were terminated illegally. The workman was neither paid one month’s salary nor was given one month’s statutory notice. It was also asserted that compliance of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the said Act was not made by the employer. The employer in its written statement filed before the Labour Court has stated that the workman was appointed as daily wager on muster roll from 1982 to 1988. In the year 1982, he worked only for 82,2/6 days, in the year 1983, he worked for about 190 days. In the year 1984, the workman worked for about 8 days and in the year 1988, he worked for 11.3/6 days. It was further stated that after the year 1988 the workman did not turn up to his duty. It was also contended that the irrigation department is not an industry and the workman is not entitled to get any relief. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as Workman Witness no. 1, while the employer examined Sri Dheer Singh as E.W.1. The workman as well as on behalf of the employer documentary evidence was filed before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court framed three points for determination in the case. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court has held that the irrigation department is constituted an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 or Section 2(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. So far as the question whether the workman had worked 3 for 240 in a calendar year, the learned Labour Court on the basis of evidence has held that the workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The learned Labour Court on the basis of evidence has held that the employer has not given statutory notice of one month or salary in lieu of the notice to the workman and has not adopted the mandatory provisions of Section 6(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Rule 42 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957. Ultimately, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned award dated 20-8-2010 directing that the workman shall be treated in service throughout, but without back wages. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, has vehemently submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in not considering the fact that the workman has raised the industrial dispute belatedly and the dispute has become stale. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in reply has submitted that the Conciliation Officer Haridwar had rejected the application of the workman under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 on 22-7-2004. The petitioner assailed that order in Writ petition No. 707 of 2004, Naresh Kumar @ Billu Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others before this Court. Ultimately, this Court vide order dated 6- 5-2005 has allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 22-7- 2004 passed by the respondent no.3 and directed the Conciliation Officer to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. It was observed in the order dated that the conciliator should try to mediate between the parties and in case, he fails to do so the matter may be sent for adjudication in accordance with the 4 provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute was raised belatedly since this aspect had already been decided by this Court. I have perused the order dated 6-5-2005. In view of the observations made by this Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be sustained at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the workman had worked for a continuous period of 240 days in one calendar year is against the evidence brought before the Labour Court. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is obvious that the learned Labour Court has dealt with this Issue in detail and at page no. 9, the Labour Court has observed thus: “Workman has invited my attention towards the document B(ii)12/11. This document is a copy of chart which is said to be issued by employer. In this document, the name of workman appears at serial No. 44 and against his name, it is mentioned that during this period, the workman has worked for 284 days in twelve months. The employer has argued that this document is not issued by his office.” The learned Labour Court while rejecting the contention of the employer has observed at page 11 as under:- “On bare perusal of details as submitted by workman and which are not duly rebutted by employer, it reveals that the workman had worked from 284 days in a calendar year. On perusal of above it is crystal clear and I find fource in the submission of workman that he has proved beyond all reasonable doubts and by clinching evidence that he has worked for more than 240 days in twelve months with the employer.” 5 It is well settled that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. The impugned award may warrant interference only if the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court are either perverse or there is misreading of evidence. In the case at hand, as detailed above, it is obvious that the learned Labour Court on appraisal of evidence led by the parties has recorded a finding of fact that the workman-respondent had worked for more than 280 days in a calendar year. It has also been held that the employer has not led any specific evidence to rebut or contradict the evidence led by the workman. This is a finding of fact and the same cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court. For the reasons and discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed outright at admission stage. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP