JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - CMs-711-712-LPA-2018

By these applications, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 220 days in re-filing and 299 days in filing the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavits of the applicant-appellant, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay.

Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay of 220 days in re-filing and 299 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

LPA-285-2018 (O&M)

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') is to the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP-24987-2012, titled Gurjit Singh v. Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another whereby the learned Single Judge has only modified the Award dated 03.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), by way of enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- but declined the relief of reinstatement of the appellant-workman.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant workman joined the services of respondent No. 2 as daily wage worker on 01.05.1995 and his services were terminated on 06.12.1999 without issuing any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. After receiving a reference of the industrial dispute raised by the workman, the Tribunal observed that the witness of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') has admitted the joining of the workman on 01.05.1995. The employer had taken up a plea before the Tribunal that the workman has himself abandoned the job. The Tribunal observed that it was the duty of the respondent to issue a letter to the workman to resume duty. However, no such notice was sent. No charge-sheet was issued to the workman and even no enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal also observed that the workman had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months before the date of his termination. The muster rolls having the attendance of the workman W-3 to W-10 which were produced by the employer were considered by the Tribunal and it was observed that he had worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding on 06.12.1999. Observing that the termination of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947), as such, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnatka v. Uma Devi and others 2006 (2) LLJ Page 722 (SC) and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni 2006 (2) LLJ page 744 (SC), the workman was awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for his retrenchment without following the legal procedures prescribed under the Act of 1947.

3. The workman assailed the finding of the Tribunal by way of filing the CWP-24987-2012 and sought a relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits by setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal.

4. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondent-employer has contested the claim of the workman alleging that he has served as a daily wage workman for 4½ year only. His services were terminated on 06.12.1999 and at this juncture, it is not appropriate to direct his reinstatement. Considering the contentions raised by both the parties, the learned Single Judge modified the Award by way of enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

5. When the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the appellant-workman. Even on the previous date on 31.10.2019, none appeared for the appellant.

6. We have considered the contentions raised in the