- (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Upadhyay, leaned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mani Shanker Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 05.11.2012 passed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 workman in Adjudication Case No. 154 of 2002. Submissions of Parties.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is wholly arbitrary and illegal and findings recorded therein with regard to 240 days of continuous service as daily wager of the respondent no. 2 is perverse inasmuch as respondent no. 1 while passing the impugned award has not only ignored important evidences but also misread some of the evidences. He passed the impugned award despite the fact that respondent no. 2 raised industrial dispute after 5 years of his alleged termination of service and also not proved that he continuously worked for 240 days are more in any calender year. He submits that the respondent no. 2 was engaged on daily wage basis in the event of need of extra hands. Papers Ext. W-5 and W-6 filed by respondent no. 2 were forged. Specific stand taken in this regard by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 was completely ignored. He submits that specific averments in this regard have been made in paragraph no. 17 and 19 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by the respondent no. 2 in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. Since the impugned award is based on the forged piece of papers and,therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.;