Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2764
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SECRETARY UTTARAKHAND ORGANIC COMMODITY BOARD – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY KUMAR BHATT – Respondent
WPMS 25 / 2025
SL. N o.
D a t e
Office N ot e s, r e por t s, or de r s or pr oce e dings or dir e ct ions a nd Re gist r a r ’s or de r w it h Signa t ur e s
COURT’S OR JUD GE’S ORD ERS
3 4 WPMS No.25 of 2025 H on’ble M a noj Ku m a r Tiw a r i, J. Mr. C.S. Rawat and Mr. Vivek Kum ar, Advocat es for t he pet it ioners. 2. Pet it ioner has challenged t he award dat ed 15.12.2023 passed by learned Labour Court , Dehradun in Adj udicat ion Case No.15 of 2016. By t he said award, t erm inat ion of service of respondent w.e.f. 18.09.2014 was declared t o be unj ust & illegal and t he em ployer was direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner; but , wit hout any back wages. Pet it ioner has challenged t he said . award on t he ground t hat t he reference was not m aint ainable, as pet it ioner est ablishm ent does not qualify t o be ‘indust ry’; respondent was engaged for a specific t erm on cont ract , t herefore, his disengagem ent upon expiry of t he t erm does not am ount t o ‘ret renchm ent ’, as defined under Sect ion 2( s) of U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act , 1947. by . This writ pet it ion is filed Ut t arakhand Organic Com m odit y Board, which was est ablished for prom ot ing and m arket ing organic farm product s, t herefore, in view of t he j udgm ent rendered by Const it ut ion Bench of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of “ Bangalore Wat er Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Raj appa & ot hers” , report ed in ( 1978) 2 SCC 213, it is an indust ry, t hus, t he first cont ent ion of t he pet it ioner, cannot be accept ed.
6 8 7 5. The Writ t en St at em ent filed by pet it ioner before learned Labour Court is on record at page no.44 of t he writ pet it ion. I n paragraph no.3 of writ t en st at em ent , alt hough pet it ioner has referred t o t he cont ract of em ploym ent execut ed wit h t he respondent , however, t here is no averm ent in t he writ t en st at em ent t hat it is a case of non- ext ension of engagem ent upon expiry of t he t erm of cont ract . On t he cont rary, paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of t he writ t en st at em ent indicat e t hat t he t erm inat ion is punit ive as cert ain allegat ions are m ade regarding work and conduct of t he respondent . Sect ion 2( s) of t he U.P. I ndust rial . Disput es Act , 1947, defines ‘ret renchm ent ’, which is ext ract ed below: - ‘Ret renchm ent ’ m eans t he “ 2 ( s) t erm inat ion by t he em ployer of t he service of a workm an or any reason what soever, ot herwise t han as punishm ent inflict ed by way of disciplinary act ion, but does not include- ( i) volunt ary ret irem ent of t he workm en; or ( ii) ret irem ent of t he workm en on reaching t he age of superannuat ion if t he cont ract of em ploym ent bet ween t he em ployer and workm an concerned cont ains a st ipulat ion in t hat behalf.” Thus, t he cont ent ion t hat it is not a . case of ret renchm ent cannot be accept ed. Pet it ioner did not m ake any effort t o j ust ify it s act ion of t erm inat ing t he respondent by leading evidence. . The scope of supervisory j urisdict ion is very narrow and t his Court cannot reassess t he evidence like in an Appeal. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he Case of
1 1 “ Sadhana Lodh Vs. Nat ional I nsurance Com pany Lt d.” report ed in ( 2003) 3 SCC 524, has held as under: - “ 7 . The supervisory j urisdict ion conferred on t he High Court s under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion is confined only t o see wh
