WPMS/2702/2023
2025 Latest Caselaw 1850 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2702/2023 on 8 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                             2025:UHC:7010
              Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings or
SL.
      Date        directions and                      COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
              Registrar's order with
                    Signatures
                                        WPMS/2702/2023
                                        Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

2. Petitioner has challenged an award dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Labour Court, Kashipur in Adjudication Case No. 8 of 2013.

3. By said award, the dispute raised by petitioner was allowed in his favour and his termination from service with effect from 21.03.2009 was declared to be unjust and illegal and the employer was directed to pay Rs. 1.70 lakh as compensation in lieu of the relief of reinstatement, as petitioner had attained the age of superannuation by that time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Labour Court ought to have granted back wages as the termination was held to be illegal as it was made without following provisions contained under Section 6 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Mktg. Board v.

2025:UHC:7010 Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543, where it was held that in case of termination of service of a workman, he should be paid lump-sum compensation in lieu of the relief of reinstatement.

6. This Court finds substance in the said submission.

7. The award rendered by learned Labour Court is in consonance with the law and the law as declared in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Mktg. Board (supra), thus there is no scope for interference in the matter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that even after nearly two years of passing the award, the amount awarded as compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.

9. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assures that amount of compensation, if not already paid, shall be paid to the petitioner positively within two weeks from today.

10. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of taking the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents on record.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.08.2025 Mahinder/

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

MAHINDER SINGH 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08 923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA 4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.08.09 13:47:17 +05'30'