JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The State is in appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5439 of 2019 wherein its writ petition against the Award dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) was dismissed on 28.02.2019. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 02.09.2019, whereby the review application alongwith application for condonation of delay of 63 days was dismissed.

2. The Labour Court had found that the workman had worked from the year 2012 to 2015 when he was asked to leave the job and, therefore, the fact that for 240 days service was there, if calculated backward from the year 2015 when cause of action arose. Resultantly, the Tribunal had found that there was violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act') as the procedural requirements were not satisfied at the time of termination. Secondly, person junior to the workman had been retained and, therefore, provisions of Section 25 -G of the 1947 Act had been violated and the principle of 'last come first go' had not been adhered to. The argument that the engagement was through outsourcing policy through a labour contractor was rejected on the ground that the service contract was not placed on record before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had, however, pegged the quantum of backwages to 50%. It was noticed that need for Sewerman had not come to an end as the system was being continued through Contractor and there was sufficient proof to show that the payment was being made to the Contractor by way of receipts for the months of April and May 2015 (Ex.M4). Therefore, there was enough material to show that there was a relationship between the department and the workman.

3. Resultantly, while applying the parameters of interference in awards of Tribunal as laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment 'Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan', AIR 1964 SC 477, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was plausible reason to interfere.

4. Counsel for the State has tried to convince this Court by referring to the documents which had been part of the review application before the learned Single Judge to show that there was service agreement as such with Security Agency while referring to the Engagement Letter dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure A-3) and service agreement dated 26.02.2015.

5. The said argument is only to be noticed and rejected, as the dispute is qua the appointment which is claimed and made from October, 2009. The claim as such of the workman was that he was appointed as a Sewerman-cum-Sanitary Helper with the respondents in November, 2009 as a Daily Wager and worked upto 31.03.2015. He used to be paid wages @ Rs. 8,300/- per month and his services had been terminated on 18.02.2015 w.e.f. 31.03.2015, in spite of the fact that he had completed 240 days. He had given reference of others who were employed after his removal and, thus, claimed the benefit of provision of Section 25 -G & H of the 1947 Act and by also mentioning the name of Abhimanyu who had also been removed vide same letter and had been taken back in compliance of Court order.

6. The Department had admitted the fact that he had worked from 25.10.2010 to 24.11.2010 for two hours at the rate of Rs. 4,214/- per month and, thereafter till 05.08.2011 at the same rate and with a contract from 26.08.2011 to 20.08.2012 at the rate of Rs. 5,380/- per month. It was admitted that he had worked upto 31.03.2015 as per the permission of the Mission Director, NRHM and payment had been made to him as per the DC Rates. The engagement thereafter was through outsourcing agency from 01.04