- (1.) The State of Uttaranchal and its functionary aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, affirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal, setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement in service, have preferred these appeals with the leave of the Court. Facts lie in a narrow compass. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal as regards the legality or otherwise of the termination of the services of workmen by order dated 8.2.1997. The Industrial Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and their termination is in violation of Rule 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, is on appreciation of fact which has been affirmed by the High Court. This finding does not suffer from any error so as to call for interference by this Court.
(3.) Once the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, is sustained, the natural consequence is that the orders of termination passed against the workmen are illegal and are rightly held to be so by the Industrial Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. We do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.;