High Court · 2025

Mr. C.S. Rawat and Mr. Vivek Kum ar, Advocat es for t he pet it ioners. Pet it ioner has challenged t he award 2. dat ed 15.12.2023 passed by learned Labour Court , Dehradun in Adj udicat ion Case No.15 of 2016. By t he said award, t erm inat ion of service of respondent w.e.f. 18.09.2014 was declared t o be unj ust & illegal and t he em ployer was direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner; but , wit hout any back wages.

3. Pet it ioner has challenged t he said award on t he ground t hat t he reference was not m aint ainable, as pet it ioner est ablishm ent does not qualify t o be ‘indust ry’; respondent was engaged for a specific t erm on cont ract , t herefore, his disengagem ent upon expiry of t he t erm does not am ount t o ‘ret renchm ent ’, as defined under Sect ion 2( s) of U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act , 1947. organic in view of This writ pet it ion filed by 4. Ut t arakhand Organic Com m odit y Board, which was est ablished for prom ot ing and product s, m arket ing j udgm ent t herefore, rendered by Const it ut ion Bench of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of “ Bangalore Wat er Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Raj appa & ot hers” , report ed in ( 1978) 2 SCC 213, it is an indust ry, t he t hus, pet it ioner, cannot be accept ed. cont ent ion t he t he alt hough pet it ioner is no averm ent The Writ t en St at em ent filed by 5. pet it ioner before learned Labour Court is on record at page no.44 of t he writ pet it ion. I n paragraph no.3 of writ t en st at em ent , referred t o t he cont ract of em ploym ent execut ed wit h t he respondent , however, t here t he writ t en st at em ent is a case of non- ext ension of engagem ent upon expiry of t he t erm of cont ract . On t he cont rary, paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of t he writ t en st at em ent indicat e t hat t he t erm inat ion is punit ive as cert ain allegat ions are m ade regarding work and conduct of t he respondent . t hat

6. Sect ion 2( s) of t he U.P. I ndust rial defines Disput es ‘ret renchm ent ’, which ext ract ed below: - 1947, Act , “ 2 ( s) m eans ‘Ret renchm ent ’ t he t erm inat ion by t he em ployer of t he service of reason what soever, a workm an or any ot herwise t han as punishm ent inflict ed by way of disciplinary act ion, but does not include- ( i) ret irem ent volunt ary t he workm en; or ( ii) ret irem ent of t he workm en on reaching t he age of superannuat ion if t he cont ract t he em ploym ent em ployer and work m an concerned cont ains a st ipulat ion in t hat behalf.” bet ween ret renchm ent Thus, t he cont ent ion t hat it is not a 7. accept ed. Pet it ioner did not m ake any effort t o j ust ify it s act ion of t erm inat ing t he respondent by leading evidence. cannot

8. The scope of supervisory j urisdict ion is very narrow and t his Court cannot reassess t he evidence like in an Appeal. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he Case of “ Sadhana Lodh Vs. Nat ional I nsurance Com pany Lt d.” report ed in ( 2003) 3 SCC 524, has held as under: - law. “ 7 . The j urisdict ion supervisory conferred on t he High Court s under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion is confined only t o see whet her an inferior court or t ribunal has proceeded wit hin it s param et ers and not t o correct an error apparent on t he face of t he record, m uch less of an error t he supervisory t he Const it ut ion, t he High Court does not act as an appellat e court or t he t ribunal. I t is also not perm issible t o a High Court on a pet it ion filed under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion t o review or re- weigh t he evidence upon which t he inferior court or t ribunal purport s t o have passed t he order or t o correct errors of law in t he decision.” I n exercising under Art icle 227 of Court Learned

9. Labour considered and discussed t he evidence on record and has recorded a finding t hat t erm inat ion of service of t he respondent ret urned by learned Labour Court is a finding of fact , which cannot be int erfered wit h in a writ pet it ion. finding illegal. The I n such view of t he m at t er, t here is

10. no scope for int erference.

11. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

09.01.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485 365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL