- (1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 28.7.1999 and the impugned order dated 23.7.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court"). The petitioner was appointed as tubewell helper on 1.3.1995. The services of the petitioner were terminated without giving any notice or payment of any compensation on 12.12.1995. The petitioner raised and industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. It was pleaded by the Management in the written statement that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in the previous 12 calendar months preceding the date when the services of the workman had been terminated. In order to prove the averments made in the written statement, the Management produced the relevant Muster Roll. After the arguments had been heard and the proceedings had been reserved for orders, the workman filed an application on 21.7.99 for leading additional evidence. After completion of the proceedings the case was reserved for orders on 20.7.1999. In this application, the petitioner wanted permission to produce a copy of the log-book showing that he had worked on 31.10.1995. This application was rejected by the Labour Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the application for leading additional evidence had been illegally dismissed by the Labour Court. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel. Admittedly, the case had been reserved for orders on 20.7.1999. One day thereafter, the application was made for leading additional evidence. Clearly the application was an after-thought. The material which was sought to be made the basis of the application was available to the petitioner even before the proceedings were reserved by the Labour Court for pronouncement of orders. Furthermore, the Management had discharged its duty by producing the relevant material with regard to the attendance of the petitioner. The Management has produced the relevant Muster Roll to prove the number of days on which the petitioner had worked. Taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, the Labour Court has given findings of fact. These findings of fact cannot be said to be based on no evidence. In my considered opinion, the award does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, would not reappreciate the evidence which was placed before the Labour Court in the same manner as could be done by an appellate Court. The award is clearly based on some evidence which was produced by the Management.
(2.) In view of the above, I find that the award does not suffer from any infirmity and deserves to be upheld. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.;