2025:UHC:7417 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3476 of 2023 20 August, 2025 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd --Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun, whereby the order of dispensation of service of respondent no.2-workman dated 08.02.2019 has been set- aside and the workman has been directed to be reinstated into service along with the back wages. 2. Facts in nutshell are that the respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to be as “the workman”) was appointed as Daily Wage Employee (Class-III) in the Institution of employer on 05.05.2001 and in consequence to the order passed by this High Court, he was getting the similar pay as that of regular employees. On 28.03.2018, the workman had been transferred to Uttarkashi where he was posted as Receptionist; within a short span of ten months, on 2025:UHC:7417 2 31.01.2019, he was transferred to Office of PRO, Hyderabad. Challenging the said order, he submitted an application 06.02.2019, whereupon the date of 22.02.2019 was fixed, but the petitioner/employer even before the date of reconciliation, by order dated 08.02.2019 terminated the services of the workman. The workman accordingly referred the reference for the labour court. In the said reference, the employer submitted its written statement wherein it was stated that looking to the immediate requirement, on 05.05.2001, on muster roll basis, the workman had been engaged from time to time. At the start of Yatra season of 2018, he was transferred to Uttarkashi and on completion of the same, due to their being minimal entry of the tourist, he was transferred to the PRO Office, Hyderabad. The employer instead of going to the transferred place, he did not join and thus violated the said order. The labour court by its order dated 18.08.2023 allowed the reference in favour of the workman and directed to reinstate him into service w.e.f. 08.02.2019 along with entire back wages. Challenging the said order, the employer has come up before this Court. 3. The reason assigned by workman for not going at transferred place is that he was a daily wager employee and was having a paucity of funds. He had arranged funds and got the reservation on 08.02.2019 to go to Hyderabad, but on the same day, his services were terminated. He had also given his application on 05.03.2019 for reinstatement, but no action was taken thereupon. In order to resolve the dispute, five issues were framed by the labour court viz; (a) There would the relationship of employee and employer between the workman and respondent; (b) After his transfer and before taking charge, the services of workman were terminated. 2025:UHC:7417 3 (c) There is difference of only eight days between the transfer and termination of service. (d) No domestic enquiry was conducted before termination. (e) The employee was posted as a temporary employee w.e.f. 05.05.2001. For this reason, he has worked for more than 240 days. 4. It is also an admitted fact that the workman has been transferred to a place, which is approx 2000 kms. from his present place of posting without any justified reason. The labour court has held that before terminating the services, no domestic enquiry was conducted and in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, the services were retrenched which is in violation of law. Moreover, since the services were also terminated by employer without giving any reasonable cause, the labour court held that the workman is entitled for back wages also. All the aforesaid facts have been decided in favour of the workman and against the employer. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by labour court. The workman had admittedly worked much more than 240 days. It is wholly unconstitutional on the part of the employer to terminate the services of the workman after transferring him to a place which is approximately more than 2000 kms. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/employer that workman had already been reinstated in service after judgment and order passed by learned labour court. 6. In a similar, this Court vide its judgment and 2025:UHC:7417 4 order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPMS No.3579 of 2023, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another has affirmed the findings of the labour court in granting back wages along with consequential benefits to the respondent-workman wherein the facts were also akin to the present petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner feebly argued that in the given facts and circumstances which resulted into termination of his services, he is not entitled to get full back wages. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water for the reason that grant of full back wages is a normal rule. The petitioner could not show any reasons to deviate there- from. Since the termination of the respondent-employee has been held to be illegal and unconstitutional; he is entitled to get full back wages. 8. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.08.2025 AK