- (1.) The application for amendment of cause title is allowed.
(2.) In this appeal, the appellant is questioning the correctness of an order made by the High Court affirming the award of the tribunal directing his reinstatement with back wages.
(3.) The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that the respondent workman (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") had not worked for 240 days or more and therefore the provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act were not attracted and the Labour Court as well as the High Court fell into error in this regard. On an earlier occasion a proceeding had been initiated by the respondent under the Workmen's compensation Act in which he had made a claim that he had worked in the appellant Board for a year and a half before the date of the accident, while the contention raised before the labour Court is to the effect that he had worked for about three years. The material produced by the appellant before the Labour Court in the shape of documents Exts. M-l to M-6 indicated that he had worked only for 250 days. On consideration of this material the Labour Court came to the conclusion that it would be. probable that he had worked for more than 240 days. This finding of fact recorded by the labour Court has been affirmed in the High court by the learned single Judge in writ petition as well as by the Division Bench on further appeal. In that view of the matter we do not think we can upset that part of the finding though Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Board very vehemently urged that the conclusion reached by the High Court and the labour Court is plainly perverse. All that has happened is that the Tribunal as well as the high Court after taking note of various factors arising in this case have judged the probability in coming to the conclusion they did. Thus, the finding abovestated is justified.;