2008 (3) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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 Rs. 5000/- by way of back wages and Rs. 1000/- by way of expenses of the case. In pursuance of the aforesaid award, Rs. 6000/- was deposited and the respondent was asked to work as daily wager in Government Fruit Preservation Centre, Pauri und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave 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) Heard Mr. Abhishek Attrey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5) In order to find an answer whether the impugned order of the High Court is sustainable, it i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. vs. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, the desirability....