2025:UHC:390 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.25 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. C.S. Rawat and Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No.15 of 2016. By the said award, termination of service of respondent w.e.f. 18.09.2014 was declared to be unjust & illegal and the employer was directed to reinstate the petitioner; but, without any back wages. 3. Petitioner has challenged the said award on the ground that the reference was not maintainable, as petitioner establishment does not qualify to be ‘industry’; respondent was engaged for a specific term on contract, therefore, his disengagement upon expiry of the term does not amount to ‘retrenchment’, as defined under Section 2(s) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. This writ petition is filed by Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board, which was established for promoting and marketing organic farm products, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & others”, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213, it is an industry, thus, the first contention of the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 2025:UHC:390 5. The Written Statement filed by petitioner before learned Labour Court is on record at page no.44 of the writ petition. In paragraph no.3 of written statement, although petitioner has referred to the contract of employment executed with the respondent, however, there is no averment in the written statement that it is a case of non- extension of engagement upon expiry of the term of contract. On the contrary, paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of the written statement indicate that the termination is punitive as certain allegations are made regarding work and conduct of the respondent. 6. Section 2(s) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines ‘retrenchment’, which is extracted below:- “2(s) ‘Retrenchment’ means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman or any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (i) voluntary retirement of the workmen; or (ii) retirement of the workmen on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf.” 7. Thus, the contention that it is not a case of retrenchment cannot be accepted. Petitioner did not make any effort to justify its action of terminating the respondent by leading evidence. 8. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction is very narrow and this Court cannot reassess the evidence like in an Appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of 2025:UHC:390 “Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.” reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, has held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 9. Learned Labour Court has considered and discussed the evidence on record and has recorded a finding that termination of service of the respondent is illegal. The finding returned by learned Labour Court is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. 10. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.01.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485 365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.01.10 11:30:07 +05'30' 2025:UHC:390