JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 4.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 12506/16, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

2.1 It is the case of the appellant-workman that he was working with the respondent-Company and that he has worked for more than 240 days and was illegally and arbitrarily terminated. Record indicates that the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred and registered as Reference (LCS) no. 5/2008 before the Presiding officer, Labour Court at Surat which culminated into an ex-parte award, wherein while allowing the Reference, the Labour Court was pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and full back wages. Record further indicates that the respondent filed an application for restoration being Restoration Application no. 39/2010 before the Labour Court, Surat which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no. 12931/14 before this Court challenging the original award as well as the order of rejecting the restoration application. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 2.2.2015 after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and remanded back the proceedings with Labour Court with cost of Rs. 7,500/- out of which, Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the appellant as cost and rest was to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Service.

2.2 The proceedings so remanded were restored back to the file of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Surat. The respondent filed its written statement dated 13.4.2015. The Labour Court, after giving an opportunity of being heard and after considering the evidence adduced by both the sides, was pleased to dismiss the Reference and inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

"22. Keeping in mind the above mentioned judicial pronouncement, it would be useful to note that in the present case also the workman has not produced any document to show that he had worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding to his termination of service. The workman has not filed any application for production of documents from the opponent. He has also stated during his cross-examination that he had no document except the document produced at exh.35/1 to show that he was working with the Tata Tele Services. He has also stated that he has no document to show that he had worked for 240 days with the opponent. The workman has also not stated the names or details of the persons who had been engaged by the opponent after his termination of service, either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit. Therefore, according to me, the workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year of his termination. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to have protection of the mandatory provisions of the Section 25F or the section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the workman has failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally by the opponent. Therefore, the workman has failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally by the opponent. Therefore, issue no. 2 is replied in negative.

23. As the workman has failed to prove breach of section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement with or without back wages. Therefore, issue no. 3 and the reference is replied in negative.

24. For the reasons stated above and considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I pass following order.

ORDER

Reference is dismissed. No Cost."

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with dismissal of the Reference, the appellant filed the present Writ Petition before this Court and contended that the impugned or