2023:UHC:8177 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 2099 of 2011 U13UPUth UPU February, 2025 Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee through its Registrar (Earlier University of Roorkee, Roorkee) District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand --Petitioner Versus Sri Mukesh Singh and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against award dated 07.10.2010, rendered by learned Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 404 of 2009. By the said award, termination of service of respondent No. 1/workman was held to be unjust and illegal and the employer was directed to reinstate him in service, but without any back wages. 2. IIT, Roorkee has challenged the said award mainly on two grounds: (i) IIT, Roorkee is an institute of national importance, funded and controlled by Central Government, therefore, Labour Court constituted under State Industrial Disputes Act, do not have jurisdiction to decide a dispute raised by employees of IIT, Roorkee against its management and the only forum available to such employees would be under the central law i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Respondent No. 1 was not a regular employee of IIT, Roorkee but he was an outsourced employee, 1 2023:UHC:8177 therefore, he was not entitled to protection of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, finding returned by learned Labour Court that Section 6-N of the State Industrial Disputes Act was violated, is unsustainable. 3. The first ground regarding non-applicability of State Industrial Disputes to the dispute in hand, is without any merit. It is an admitted position that dispute raised by respondent No. 1 was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner of State Labour Department to Labour Court, Haridwar for adjudication vide order dated 01.11.2000 and, at that time, University of Roorkee was a State University, which was upgraded as I.I.T under Institutes of Technology Act w.e.f. 21.09.2001. University of Roorkee was a State University upto 20.09.2001 and it was upgraded as I.I.T only from 21.09.2001 thus, the contention that State Industrial Disputes Act do not have any application in the matter, cannot be sustained. Thus, first contention, that provision of State Industrial Act would not have any application in the matter, is without any substance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that respondent No. 1 was engaged through an outsourcing agency, namely, M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Pvt. Ltd. and he admitted during cross- examination that his attendance was taken by M/s Eagle Hunters Solution Pvt. Ltd. His further submission is that respondent No. 1 was not able to produce any appointment order issued by University of Roorkee before the Labour Court. 2 2023:UHC:8177 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that his client was engaged directly by University of Roorkee and attendance register for the period between 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1999 was produced before Labour Court and learned Labour Court has returned a categorical finding, based on the attendance register, that petitioner was an employee of University of Roorkee. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn attention of this Court to discussion made by learned Labour Court in page 15 of impugned award, where reference has been made to attendance register maintained by University of Roorkee. After examining attendance register, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that attendance register was maintained by University of Roorkee and not by the contractor and name of respondent No. 1 was mentioned as “workman” in the register. 7. Learned Labour Court has also referred to the statement made by Vikas Tyagi, who was examined as employer witness who, when confronted with the attendance register, did not dispute its authenticity, however, he said that he is not able to recognize the official seal put on the register and also the signature of the official. Since Vikas Tyagi was an employee of IIT, Roorkee, while the attendance register was maintained by University of Roorkee, therefore the testimony of Vikas Tyagi also do not support the petitioner, but supports the workman. 3 2023:UHC:8177 8. Law is well settled that, while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit in Appeal over the judgment rendered by Courts/Tribunals. 9. The scope of powers under Article 227 is very limited, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524. Whether respondent No. 1 was directly employed by University of Roorkee or through an outsourcing agency, is a finding of fact. The finding returned by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be so perverse, which may warrant interference by this Court. 10. Since there is evidence available on record, which has been considered and discussed by learned Labour Court for arriving at the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was an employee of University of Roorkee (now IIT, Roorkee), therefore, this Court declines to interfere with such finding of fact. As observed earlier, the first contention raised on behalf of petitioner is also without any substance. Thus, there is no scope for interference, 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 13Pth Mahinder P February, 2025 4