Reserved on:25.07.2025 Delivered on:25.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Civil Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3472 of 2016

Manoj Kumar ......Petitioner

Vs.

Executive Engineer, Parikalp Khand …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the Petitioner through VC.

Mr. V. D. Bisen, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 challenges the Order dated

01.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No. 53 of 2015. The Petitioner prays for the quashing of the

award and for a direction to reinstate him in service.

2. The Petitioner, Manoj Kumar, claims to have been engaged as a daily

wager Beldar with the Respondent department on muster roll basis for

the period 01.05.1986 to 27.06.1990.

3. According to the Petitioner, his services were illegally retrenched on

28.06.1990 without the issuance of any written order of termination. He was neither given an appointment letter at the time of engagement nor a

termination letter when his services were discontinued.

4. After a long interval, on 10.02.2014, the Petitioner raised an industrial

dispute. Along with the reference, he moved an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the Conciliation Officer. However, the conciliation proceedings failed, and the matter was

referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Haridwar, being registered as Adjudication Case No. 53 of 2015.

5. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, passed an award on 01.10.2016, published on 23.11.2016, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. The Labour Court held that the Petitioner failed to prove his employment and had not discharged the burden of establishing an employer-employee relationship.

6. Aggrieved by the award, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying for quashing of the impugned award and for a direction of reinstatement in service.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in discarding the testimony of the Petitioner and the supporting affidavits of co-workers. Once oral and affidavit evidence was led, the burden shifted to the Respondent to produce muster rolls or departmental records, which it failed to do.

8. It was contended that in industrial adjudication, strict provisions of the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code are not applicable, and the matter should be decided on principles of equity and preponderance of probabilities.

9. Counsel submitted that the delay in raising the dispute could not have been a ground to decline relief outright. The Petitioner had specifically stated that if reinstated, he would not claim back wages owing to the delay.

10. It was also urged that the Labour Court treated the dispute as if it were a civil suit, placing the entire burden of proof on the Petitioner, which is contrary to the benevolent spirit of labour laws.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner utterly failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that he was employed with the department between 1986 and 1990. No muster rolls, wage slips, or official documents were produced.

12. It was urged that the affidavits relied on by the Petitioner were not proved in accordance with law and that even the witness Phool Singh admitted he had not worked in the divisional office, making his statement unreliable.

13. It was further contended that the delay of 24 years in raising the dispute was wholly unexplained and fatal to the Petitioner’s claim. Entertaining such stale disputes would unsettle settled rights and prejudice the Respondent.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and Perused the records.

15. The scope of this Court under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate. Interference is warranted only if the award suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error.

16. The Petitioner claims engagement as a daily wager from

01.05.1986 to 27.06.19