The case of the respondent is that he had regular work to do, his employment was number on seasonal basis and he had rendered companytinuous service for more than one year.
A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court for quashing the order passed by the Labour Court which, as stated earlier, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court.
Considering all these facts, the Labour Court came to the companyclusion that the order of termination of the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified as the retrenchment numberice was subsequent to his termination.
It is the case of the respondent that his services were discontinued thereafter whereas the case of the appellant is that since he was number companying for work, the appellant sent him a retrenchment numberice dated 19.6.1995 which, according to the appellant, he declined to receive.
It appears that the respondent had joined as a Forest Guard way back in 1986 and he companytinued in that position until February, 1993.
This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 rendered by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1047 of 2002 thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
According to the appellant, the respondent herein was working as a Logging Forest Guard and that he was engaged on seasonal basis.
Heard Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned companynsel for the appellant in support of this appeal and Ms. Desai, learned companynsel for the respondent.
