NEEL METAL KAMGAR SANGATHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPMS/3576/2025 · 2025-12-24
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15698 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15698 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:11591 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
W PMS/ 3 5 7 6 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner contends that he is a protected workman under Rule 29 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. Petitioner is aggrieved by termination of his service by the management. The termination
order was passed on
17.11.2025.
3. It is contended that without affording any opportunity of hearing, services of petitioner were terminated. It is further contended that prior permission of the competent authority was also not obtained while terminating the services of the petitioner.
4. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
5. Since petitioner is a workman in a private company, therefore, he cannot directly approach High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner has remedy of raising industrial dispute which if remains unresolved, can be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator.
2025:UHC:11591
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that industrial dispute has already been raised and the Conciliation Officer has submitted failure report. Now he submits that the matter is before the State Government under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Act.
7. Having regard to the facts of the case, the competent authority is directed to examine the issue and if the case is found fit for reference, necessary order be passed under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Act, within four weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this
order.
8. Having regards to the fact that right hand of petitioner was amputated in an industrial accident, which occurred in the manufacturing unit of respondent No. 5, till the order of reference is passed, petitioner shall be retained in the employment of the respondent.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.12.2025 Mahinder/
2025:UHC:11591