SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Binjhol, Panipat, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 18779 of 2012) filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, ordering re -instatement of Sanjay Kumar, the workman (respondent No.1 herein), with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of the demand notice, has been dismissed.
(2.) THOUGH there is a delay of 235 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 2811 -LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court. In the present case, the respondent ­ workman was appointed by the appellant ­ Management as Typist with effect from 11.09.1997 and he worked as such till 31.05.2004, when his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent ­ workman raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, vide award dated 21.03.2012, decided the reference in favour of the respondent ­ workman, after recording a finding of fact that on the date of his termination, the respondent ­ workman had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, and held that he was entitled for the protection under Section 25 -F of the Act. The said finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the admission made by MW.1 Amar Singh, SDO, who had admitted in his cross -examination that the respondent ­ workman had worked with the appellant ­ Management as Typist from 03.10.1997 to 31.05.2014. In support of the plea raised by the appellant ­ Management that the respondent ­ workman did not complete 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months, the appellant ­ Management was permitted to produce the relevant record, but they did not produce the same. Consequently, an adverse inference was drawn against the appellant ­ Management. Undisputedly, before terminating the services of the respondent ­ workman, the mandatory condition provided under Section 25 -F of the Act was not followed.
(3.) THE said award of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant ­ Management by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while recording detailed reasons, dismissed the writ petition, after coming to the conclusion that the Labour Court, while passing the award, did not commit any judicial error or illegality. It has also been held that a pure finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the record, which is neither illegal nor perverse in any manner.;