Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 5053 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 7 days in re -filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 5054 of 2011 C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M. No. 5055 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 462 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of.
(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.3.2011, upholding the award of the Labour Court, Ambala dated 21.8.2008. The Labour Court on a reference under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Reference No 187 of 2003 has negatived the claim of the appellant -workman for reinstatement to service with the respondent. The workman had claimed in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court that he had served the respondent -department as a Tubewell Operator from January 2000 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2200/ - and that he had worked as such up to June 2004 when his services were brought to an end by an alleged verbal order. The respondent -department in its reply before the Labour Court in the industrial reference emphatically denied the averment of the appellant and took the categorical stand that the appellant had as a matter of fact never been appointed to service and therefore, the question of termination of his services did not arise. Accordingly, the management maintained that the question of completion of 240 days of service ex facie did not arise in the present proceedings therefore no violation of Section 25F and G of the Act could be complained of.
(3.) THE evidence was led by both the sides and upon consideration of such evidence, the Labour Court, Ambala turned down the prayer of the appellant for reinstatement and declined the reference inasmuch as it found that no evidence was brought on record by the workman upon whom the burden rested to prove that he had worked for the period claimed. The appellant -workman in his support produced two witnesses. Unfortunately, both these witnesses in their cross -examination could not establish on record facts asserted by the appellant that he had in fact actually worked for the period claimed.;