The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the appellate court in findings of fact by the Labour Court.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

CMP(M) No. 645 of 2017

By medium of this application, the applicant/appellant has sought condonation of 138 days’ delay that has crept up in filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit of the Company Secretary of the appellant, we find that the applicant/appellant has carved out sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, delay of 138 days’ in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

Appeal be registered.

LPA No.67 of 2017.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant is directed against the judgment passed by the learned writ Court on 30.08.2016 in CWP No. 6151 of 2010 whereby it upheld the award passed in favour of the workman by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short “Labour Court”).

3. Bereft of any un-necessary details, the facts are that upon a reference, the workman filed his claim petition which was answered in his favour by the learned Labour Court with the direction to reinstate him in service with seniority and continuity with effect from 01.12.1996 without back wages.

4. The award was assailed by the appellant by filing aforesaid CWP before the learned writ Court on the ground of illegality, no relationship of Employee/Employer, the respondent not being a workman etc., however, all these pleas were turned down by the learned writ Court by passing a detailed judgment.

5. Undeterred, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned writ Court had fallen in error in not taking into consideration that the award passed in favour of the workman suffered from illegality and perversity as it was not a case of retrenchment as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “Act”) and, therefore, the workman could not have been ordered to be reinstated in service.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that all these issues have been dealt with in detail by the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court came to a categoric conclusion that the workman was appointed as Pharmacist in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, (for short “DDU Hospital”), Shimla, on contract basis vide letter dated 22.07.1995, however, since there was no shop at the aforesaid hospital, therefore, the workman was made to join in the Office of the Corporation with the assurance that as and when the construction work of shop at ‘DDU’ hospital would be completed, he would be engaged therein in terms of the agreement dated 22.07.1995. This work was not even assigned by the appellant and it was infact admitted that the workman had been assigned the job of miscellaneous work which included release of consignment of medicines from Transport Company and handing over of the kits/boxes of medicines to the transporter for dispatching to various destinations. The specific stand of the appellant was that since the workman had failed to work to its satisfaction, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and show cause notice to this effect was issued vide Ex.RF calling upon him to explain his conduct. As per the appellant, the workman had submitted his reply Ex.RG, but the same was not found satisfactory and thereafter inquiry was initiated against him wherein one Shri S.L. Bragta was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, who found him to be at fault and ultimately vide order Ex.RM the services of the workman were dispensed with immediate effect.

7. Notably, the only plea put forth by the appellant before the learned Labour Court was that the workman had left the job of his own in November, 1996 and on that basis the learned Labour Court had framed the following issues including the issue of abandonment which was framed as Issue No.1:-

“1. Whether Shri Ajay Sood left the job, on his own, in November, 1996 as per the statement of respondent? If so, its effect? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is not proved in affi