9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.820 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the same affirming the award of the Labour Court. 3) Brief facts The respondent was engaged by the appellant Horticulture Department as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and thereafter when the work was available he was engaged from time to time. However, he did not work for 240 days in any calendar year. He did not work as daily wager w.e.f. 09.7.1992 of his own. In 2001, the respondent after about nine years, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Dehradun and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 45 of 2001. On 23.07.2001, the Labour Court directed the department to reinstate the respondent and to pay him ₹ 5000/- by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided the work at Pauri deliberately with a view to harass him. On 27.05.2005, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun directed the appellant to pay ₹ 92,842/- to the respondent holding that the appellant ought to have reinstated the respondent at the same place where he was earlier working and from where his services were terminated and holding that the respondent has been asked to work at Pauri to nullify the award passed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed Civil Writ Petition (M/S) No. 820 of 2005 in the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital and the same was dismissed on 26.07.2006. Against the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred this appeal by way of special leave. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no justification to award a claim of ₹ 92,842/-. With these particulars and other details, the Horticulture and Food Processing Department filed a writ petition NO. 820 of 2005 before the High Court, Uttaranchal. 6) Now, let us see the impugned order passed by the High Court, which reads as under: "I have perused the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by respondent No.2 and I do not find any illegality in the order so as to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed." In view of the specific stand taken by the Department in the affidavit which we have referred above, the cryptic order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
