JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of the judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No.13869/2004 titled Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Shahdara, Delhi. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has upheld the Award dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Karkardooma, Delhi in I.D. No.308/1998 titled as "The Management of M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Vs. Its Workman Smt. Santosh Devi".

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court was engaged as a daily wager in the services of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi (GTB Hospital) as a Safai Karamchari on muster roll w.e.f. 17.12.1988. As per the statement made by the appellant, her services were discontinued on 17.04.1993 without giving her any notice; without giving any compensation; without holding any inquiry; without publishing any seniority list; and without following the rule of "last come first go". The appellant made efforts before the Department for reinstatement. However, as nothing was being done in respect of reinstatement, on 31.12.1997, the appellant served a legal notice to the authorities for claiming her reinstatement.

3. The facts further reveal that the appellant - as she was not reinstated in service, took shelter under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). With the conciliation proceedings resulting in failure, on 30.08.1998, the Appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court-I and the same was registered as ID No.308/1988. The appellant workman filed a statement of claim on 17.12.1998 stating that she has continuously worked from 01.04.1993, however, at times, she was not allowed to perform her duties by way of unfair labour practices though she was reporting for duty on each & every day and the employer did not prepare seniority list of persons working on daily wages and, therefore, as she has been retrenched without paying compensation, the statutory provisions as contained under Section 25 F, G & H of the ID Act, 1947 have been violated. A prayer was made for her reinstatement in service. The appellant workman filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 14.02.2000 and she was subjected to cross-examination on 02.05.2001.

4. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent employer did file a detailed written-statement on 25.08.1999 and did admit that the workman had worked in different spells as a muster roll worker w.e.f. 01.01.1990, however, she has not put in 240 days of service in a calendar year and, therefore, she was not entitled for reinstatement. It was also brought to the notice of the Labour Court that no seniority list for muster roll workmen was prepared in the establishment and a prayer was made for dismissing the claim of the workman. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined before the Labour Court and the Labour Court finally passed an Award on 08.07.2003 holding that the workman has not put in 240 days of service in a calendar year and, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief.

5. The workman being aggrieved by the Award dated 08.07.2003 preferred a writ petition before this Court, i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 13869/2004 and the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. The operative paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge read as under:

"17. Heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and examined the Labour Court Record and the Judgments relied upo