Tatia, J. - (1.) THE appellants have preferred this intra-court appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants-State's S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1304/2002 whereby appellants-writ petitioners challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 27.11.2001 by which the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner completed 240 days before he was removed without complying with the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, instead of order of reinstatement, the respondent-workman was awarded compensation of Rs.27,000/- only with interest @ 12% per annum.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent- workman claimed that he was appointed as Cattle Guard with effect from 1.4.1980 and on daily wages basis but on 31.3.1991 he was removed from service without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the of 1947. The respondent-applicant submitted his affidavit in support of his claim and on behalf of the appellant-non-applicant affidavit of Arjun Singh Lugtawat was submitted before the Labour Court. Both the workman and witness of the employer were cross-examined and on the basis of the details of the work placed on record, the learned tribunal reached to the conclusion that the workman did work for more than 240 days in various preceding year and by the time he was was removed from service, he was already in service for 10 years. In spite of finding of long employment of the workman, the learned Labour Court awarded only compensation of Rs.27,000/- and the appellants yet not satisfied, preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1304/2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by brief order dated 17.4.2002 holding that the finding of fact has been recorded in favour of the workman and reinstatement has not been ordered, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction in the award impugned. The learned Addl. Advocate General Shri R.L. Jangid submitted that the learned tribunal committed committed error of fact in drawing inference that the workman completed 240 days in preceding calender year and it is also submitted that the appellant-department is not industry. So far as appellant-department was not industry is concerned, that was not the plea taken by the appellant before the Labour Court and, therefore, there is no such finding in the impugned award. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the Labour Court has decided the question of fact that the workman completed 240 days of work during his employment in the preceding year, which cannot be interfered while exercising writ jurisdiction as there was no ground for interference in finding of fact recorded by the tribunal. We are also of the view that the tribunal even after holding that the workman worked for 10 years before he was remained from service and the workman worked for more than 240 days in many calender years then the tribunal in fact has granted very nominal relief to the respondent. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.;