ORDER :

1. Hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or visual quality.

I.A. No. 6590 of 2021

2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. No reply to the aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed.

5. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 23 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

6. I.A. No. 6590 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 655 of 2019

7. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (L) No. 4540 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the Award dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in reference Case No. 34 of 2000 in which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman.

8. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

It is the case of the respondent-workman that he being a regular employee of the appellant-employer, has been terminated from service with effect from 01.04.1999 without assigning any reason or without any departmental proceeding or provision contained under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The workman raised dispute, conciliation fails, the appropriate Government made reference being Reference No. 34 of 2000 to the effect that “Whether the termination of service of workman K.L. Bannerji by the management M/s. D.P. Bodhanwala Transport and Handling Contractor, Patel Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief workman is entitled to?”

The Labour court has framed two issues which are as under:

(I) Whether Shri K.L. Bannerji employee of M/s. D.P. Bodhanwala Transport and Handling Contractor, Patel Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur (Management), was workman within the definition of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(II) Whether termination of Mr. K.L. Bannerji with effect from 1.4.1999 was legal and valid and in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to what relief he is entitled to?

The Award has been passed in favour of the workman by which termination of the workman from service has been held to the illegal as also workman has been held entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% back wages and shall be deemed to be in continuous service.

The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant, perused the documents available on record as also the discussion made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

10. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in its right perspective since it is the admitted case of the workman that his performance in the service was not up to the mark. According to him, since there is an admission, therefore, if on that ground the workman has been terminated, the same cannot be said to be unjust.

11. The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the workman namely Sri K.L. Bannerji, who was working under the Management-appellant, was terminated from service with effect from 1st April, 1999. The matter finally culminated into reference being Reference Case No. 34 of 2000 and referred before the appropriate adjudicator i.e. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The Labour Court summoned the appellant for answering