2025:UHC:734 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 2390 of 2014 U11UPUth UPU February, 2025 College of Engineering Roorkee, District Haridwar through its Dean Administration --Petitioner Versus Mohd. Tehsin --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner None for the respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 18.07.2014, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar in Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 2023. By the said order, learned Labour Court allowed the claim of respondent for retrenchment compensation, notice pay and unpaid wages for 27 days in the month of February, 2013. 2. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that no evidence was produced by respondent before the Labour Court based on which relationship of master and servant could be inferred as such the finding that respondent was an employee of petitioner, is unsustainable. 3. The impugned order is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Perusal of the order reveals that learned Labour Court has considered the evidence on record for returning a finding that respondent was an employee of petitioner college. Learned labour court has referred a letter issued 1 2025:UHC:734 by the Librarian, College of Engineering, Roorkee to the Dean (Administration) of the college, on 18.01.2013. 5. In the said letter, an endorsement was made to the respondent to ensure compliance of agenda item Nos. 2 & 3, mentioned in the letter. Based on said documentary evidence, learned Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that respondent was an employee of College of Engineering, Roorkee, Haridwar. 6. Learned Labour Court has also considered and discussed the statement made by Ajay Sharma, who was examined as witness by the employer, who has stated that he had seen the respondent roaming around the College. The letter dated 18.01.2013, when seen in the light of statement made by Employer witness, leads to the conclusion that respondent was serving in College of Engineering. Therefore the finding regarding master and servant relationship between petitioner and respondent cannot be said to be perverse. 7. No other submission was made on behalf of petitioner for challenging the impugned order. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. The amount deposited by petitioner in terms of order dated 17.10.2014 shall be released in favour of respondent within two weeks. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 11Pth P February, 2025 Mahinder 2