JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Misc. Case No. 77 of 2003, Udham Singh, workman v. Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Agra and another. 3. By the aforesaid order dated 26th July, 2005 the Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 46,800/- payable to the workman and has directed the respondents to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 3-1/2% per annum on the aforesaid amount. 4. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the workman Udham Singh who was employed at Mandi Samiti Mathura on 10.6.1996 claiming that he has not been paid salary for the period 1st December, 1997 to 31st March, 1999 to which he is entitled to but it has not been paid to him inspite of demand made to the employer. 5. The Mandi Samiti, Mathura filed objection inter alia that the workman was appointed on daily wage for 89 days and he was transferred to Mandi Samiti, Mathura on 30th June, 1997. Thereafter his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 30.11.1997 and it is incorrect to say that his services were dispensed with from 1.4.1999 by oral order or that he is entitled to salary upto that date. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the workman has not worked with the Mandi Samiti after 30.11.1997 and in pursuance of the circular letter issued by the Director, Mandi Parishad the salary may be paid only to the regularly appointed employees. The workman being a daily wager his services were dispensed as his appointment was illegal, unauthorized and against the regulations. 7. The Labour Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of pleadings and evidence accepted the version of the workman and held that he continued in service up to 31.3.1999 on the basis of the Attendance Register of Mandi Samiti filed before the Labour Court. 8. 7. The Labour Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of pleadings and evidence accepted the version of the workman and held that he continued in service up to 31.3.1999 on the basis of the Attendance Register of Mandi Samiti filed before the Labour Court. 8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that workman had not worked after 30.11.1997 and as his brother was also Secretary in the same Mandi Samiti, the attendance of the respondent workman were got manufactured. It is stated that on account of this the brother of the workman had been suspended and enquiry was pending against him as such the Labour Court has wrongly decreed the claim of the workman in toto along with the interest as stated above. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the workman had worked up to 1st April, 1999 and his services have been illegally terminated by an oral order. It is also stated that no averments have been made either in the writ petition or before the Labour Court as to how the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, unauthorized and against the regulations even if it is assumed that he was appointed on daily wage basis. 10. In rebuttal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the claim petition was filed beyond limitation and no cogent reasons have been recorded by the Labour Court for accepting the manufactured and interested version of respondent No. 2. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the workman concerned was appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 2925/- per month, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that he was a daily wager is against the record. 12. As regards illegal termination by oral order dated 30.11.97 is concerned, it has come on record that apart from other employees namely, Sri Sanjay Verma and Sri Vijay Kumar had filed claim application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act on same ground as by the workman in the instant writ petition which were registered as Misc. Case Nos. Case Nos. 65 and 66 of 1999 respectively were allowed. The orders passed in the aforesaid two cases were challenged by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura in writ petition No. 17006 of 2000 before the High Court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 17006 of 2000 aforesaid. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment it appears that the writ petition filed by the Mandi Samiti was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11th April, 2000. The aforesaid judgment was also challenged by the Mandi Samiti before the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12397 of 2000 which was also dismissed by the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the limited dispute involved in these matters and the fact that the payment as per the impugned order is released, no further order is required to be passed, hence these petitions are dismissed.” 14. The Labour Court has noted that the workman has in his evidence denied the suggestion of making any ‘Farji’ signatures on the Attendance Register whereas the witness of the employer could not say anything about the attendance of the workman during the period 1.12.2007 up to 30.11.1997. On the basis of the photostat copy of the Attendance Register produced before the Labour Court it concluded that the case of the employer was not believable, rather it confirms the contention of the workman. 15. As regards suspension of Sri Vijendra Singh, brother of the workman is concerned, the Labour Court has noted that no action was taken against the workman concerned nor he was ever charged by the Mandi Samiti for making any ‘Farji’ signatures and that the case of the workman was not at all affected by suspension of Sri Vijendra Singh. The Labour Court has observed that in case the Mandi Samiti finds that any illegality has been committed by the brother of the workman action may be taken against him. 16. The Labour Court has found as a matter of fact on the basis of the document, paper No. 4 (B-11), the Attendance Register that the workman has worked up to 31st March, 1999, and that his salary has not been paid by the employer and hence he is entitled for payment of salary for the period 1.12.1997 to 31.3.1999. 17. The Labour Court has found as a matter of fact on the basis of the document, paper No. 4 (B-11), the Attendance Register that the workman has worked up to 31st March, 1999, and that his salary has not been paid by the employer and hence he is entitled for payment of salary for the period 1.12.1997 to 31.3.1999. 17. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the workman has not been able to prove his case before the Labour Court whereas there has been virtually no evidence against him regarding making of any ‘Farji’ signatures made on the Attendance Register. It may also be noted that the witness of the employer has also not proved anything against the workman. 18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————