HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 983 of 2025 (M/S) Assistant General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others ….......Petitioner Vs. President, Uttarakhand Roadways Karmachari Sanyukt Parishad .....Respondent Present : Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the award dated 26.07.2024, passed in Award No. 13 of 2020, Assistant General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others Vs. President, Uttarakhand Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad, by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, it was held that the workman is entitled to get Third Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- with effect from 24.04.2016. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. A workman was appointed in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, UPSRTC on 24.01.1989 as driver. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, his services were absolved in the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation. On 29.09.1991, he was suspended due to some alleged misconduct. On 17.07.1992, he was terminated. The order terminating the services of the workman was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Uttarakahnd, Haldwani, District Nainital. The Labour Court 2 reinstated the services of the workman on half wages. This order was challenged before this Court. The award was modified to the extent that the workman would not be entitled to the wages. Thereafter, the workman was reinstated in the services, but while assessing ACP, it was found that from 23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000, his services were discontinued and it was not satisfactory. This period was not, as such, calculated while calculating ACP. It was not found correct by the Labour Court in the impugned order on the ground that the reinstatement was done with the continuity of the services of the workman. This order is impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from 23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000, the services of the workman were not satisfactory. Therefore, this period may not be considered while calculating the ACP of the workman. 5. This argument has less force for acceptance. The workman was terminated on 29.09.1991, and finally he was dismissed from services on 17.07.1992. He was reinstated, but the petitioner did not count his services from 23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000, and also, according to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner during that period was unsatisfactory. It may be noted that the petitioner was reinstated in the services by the Labour Court on half wages and the Labour Court, in its award, noted that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of services. This award was upheld by the High Court to the extent that the services of the workman during that period shall be deemed to be continued. Only the wages part was modified. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it has to be presumed that the workman was in service during the period, in fact, he had not worked. This is what has been observed in the impugned award. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant 3 any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.04.2025 Ravi Bisht