Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. - (1.) THE applicant/respondent initially filed civil writ petition No. 3266 of 1989 challenging the award dated 24.03.1987 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. Learned Single Judge set aside the award vide judgment dated 03.07.2009. Against the judgment of learned Single Judge, State of Punjab and another preferred letters patent appeal wherein the order of learned Single Judge was set aside. Now, this review petition has been filed through a counsel who did not argue the case before the LPA Bench to which one of us (Ritu Bahri, J.) was a member.
(2.) THE LPA Bench held as under: - 10. A perusal of the statement would not leave any manner of doubt that Shri Amarjit Singh, SSI, not only saw the occurrence with his own eyes but he along with Pritam Singh, Electrician, Mangal Singh, Blacksmith and Swaran Singh, Electrician, caught the workman -respondent on the spot when he was trying to fled away. Viewed in that context, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that it is a case of no evidence would also not be sustainable. 11. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the award of the Labour Court is restored. As a consequence of the aforesaid direction, the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga, would be inconsequential. The original record be sent back. No order as to cost. Firstly there is a delay of 1135 days in refiling the present review petition, which is excessive. No cogent and sufficient reasons have been given on the basis of which delay could be condoned.
(3.) EVEN otherwise, a preliminary issue arises whether a review petition could be allowed to be argued by a counsel who was not a counsel when arguments in the LPA were addressed.;