ORDER :

Heard counsels for the parties.

2. The Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 15 of 2008, whereby the learned Labour Court had allowed the claim in favour of the workman. It had been ordered for payment of salary for the Month of February, 2007 to April, 2008 amounting to Rs. 1,54,661/-.

3. From pleadings and argument, it appears that the concerned workman had been appointed by the petitioner-employer vide appointment letter dated 20.12.2006. As per the terms of appointment, continuous absence was the ground for removal. It has been claimed by the petitioner-employer that on this ground the petitioner has been removed with effect 31.01.2007 and till date of removal, wages has been released.

4. On the other hand, respondent-workman has taken plea that he had worked till April, 2008 and as such he has moved under Section 33 (C)( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of due salary.

5. The claim has been disputed by the employer taking plea of termination of service w.e.f. 31.01.2007. The concerned labour court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence has found that the concerned workman is entitled for salary for the aforesaid period. This order has been impugned in the present writ petition.

6. Assailing the above order, counsel for the petitioner-employer has taken three plea:-

(i) First point has been taken that the respondent is not a workman under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, he is not entitled to move application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947.

(ii) Second point has been taken that no dispute can be decided under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947, Since the entitlement has been disputed on the ground of dismissal and as such, the concerned labour Court could not have granted benefit to the workmen.

(iii) Third point has been taken that alleged report submitted by him under the certificate of posting is not proof of work and as such, it should have been presumed that the concerned workman has not worked for those period.

7. In support of first point paragraph-14 of the judgment reported in 1979 (3) SCC 280 in the case of Tarini Kamal Pandit & Ors. vs. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee (dead) by legal representatives and para 21, 22, and 23 of the judgment reported in (2011) 6 SCC 529 in the case of Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Anr. Vs. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (dead) by LRs & Ors. has been referred.

8. Paragraph-14 of the judgment in the case of Tarini Kamal Pandit (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-

14. Before we conclude we will shortly refer to the question of law raised by Mr L.N. Sinha on behalf of the defendant. He submitted that as the title in the property vested in the defendant by confirmation of the court sale and later by a registered conveyance, the plaintiffs cannot seek relief on the unregistered agreement Ext. 4 as conveying any title to them. This point was not taken in any of the courts below but learned counsel submitted that because it is a pure question of law not involving any investigation of facts and as it goes to the root of the matter the court may permit the point to be taken. In support of his contention that a pure question of law in the circumstances can be taken for the first time in this Court he relied on the decisions of this Court in Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari, Raja Sri Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa, Seth Badri Prasad v. Seth Nagarmal, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Swarup and T.G. Appanda Mudaliar v. State of Madras. As the point raised is a pure question of law not involving any investigation of the facts, we permitted the learned counsel to raise the question. The plea of the learned counsel is that as the title has vested in him by virtue of the confirmation of the sale and the registered conveyance the plaintiff cannot rely on the unregistered agreeme