2025:UHC:7457 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 203 of 2024 20 August, 2025 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. & another --Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The employer-Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam has come up in this petition before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 25.10.2023 published on 03.11.2023 which was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No.02 of 2021. 2. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are that in view of the dispute arose between the employee and the employer, the adjudication case under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed before the labour court wherein it was stated that he was employed with the petitioner-institution in the month of May, 1995 as a daily wage employee of Class-IV post and was getting salary similar to that of regular employees. In order to make arrangement for the visit of 15th Finance Commission, respondent-employee along with three other persons were attached with the Tourist Rest House, Uttarkashi. At that 2025:UHC:7457 2 time, respondent-employee was attached on the post of Waiter in Toursim Department, Dehradun. On 04.12.2018, the employee was relieved from his service and on 05.12.2018 he gave joining to his post with the petitioner/employer. However, vide order dated 17.12.2018, his services were terminated. 3. The ground given for his termination was that in the tasks assigned to the respondent-employee, he was deviating from the same and was negligent in doing his works, which is not in the interest of the petitioner/institution. The employee had shown his service as 18 years 07 months and 27 days and from 01.05.1988 till the date of termination i.e. 17.12.2018, he remained posted continuously and worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 4. On behalf of the petitioner-institution written statement was filed before the labour court wherein it was stated that respondent-employee was posted as a daily wage employee of Class IV post till further orders and he was engaged on seasonal basis. He was negligent in doing the works assigned to him which falls in Rule 5(6) and 5(9) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules. 5. The labour court by its award dated 25.10.2023 reached to the conclusion that the termination of services of the respondent-employee was illegal unjustified and for this reason, it directed for the reinstatement of employee along with entire back wages. Challenging the said award, present writ petition has been filed. 6. It is the admitted case that the transfer of the respondent-employee was ordered on 03.12.2018 and as a result thereof, he was relieved from his office to join at the transferred place on 04.12.2018 and on 05.12.2018, he gave his joining to the transferred post. Hence, there has 2025:UHC:7457 3 been no delay on the part of the respondent-employee in giving joining to a new place of posting. 7. It is also admitted position in this matter that before dismissing the respondent-employee from the service, no domestic inquiry was conducted. It has been held time and again that where an employer has failed to make an inquiry before discharging a workman, it is open to him to justify the action before tribunal by leading all relevant evident before it. In such a case, the employer would not have the benefit which he had in cases where domestic inquiries have been held. 8. It is also well settled that if no inquiry had been held by the management or the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic inquiry that may have been held by it, the management is entitled to straightway adduce the evidence before the tribunal justifying its action. In this case, respondent-workman has been retrenched. It is a well settled before retrenching an employee, he must be given one months notice, so as to enable him to search for an alternate employment. 9. In this matter, no evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner-employer before the learned labour court which could prove that the respondent-employee had been retrenched from the service in accordance with law. At one place of time, it has stated that respondent-employee has worked for more than 18 years and merely on the basis that the employee has refused to work and is negligent, it is stated that it amounts to misconduct as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, while at the same time, it has been stated that the employee is a daily wage employee. According to the petitioner, the above Rules are not applicable upon the daily wage employees. Thus, the employee cannot be held to be guilty of misconduct. 2025:UHC:7457 4 10. Moreover, there is violation of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides giving one month notice, compensation of retrenchment and giving information to the State Government. 11. On the basis of aforesaid condition, the labour court held that the retrenchment of the respondent- employee to be violative and illegal and accordingly, the impugned award was passed by directing that the respondent-employee would be entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 17.12.2018 along with all back wages. 12. 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. 13. I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by learned labour court and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.08.2025 AK