JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - CM-3011-LPA-2017

Application for condoning the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly support by an affidavit of an official. The delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of, accordingly.

LPA-1399-2017

The challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-26840-2013, titled Balwinder Kumar v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, and another, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.

2. The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') that he has worked with the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') as a Guest House Attendant for a continuous period of 6 years and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,370/- and his service were wrongly terminated on 12.09.2006 without issuance of any notice, charge-sheet and without payment of any compensation. The management denied the relationship of the workman and the management before the Tribunal and it was alleged that he was never employed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the workman was on the roll of the management but on ad hoc basis and before his termination, the compliance of the provisions of Section 2 5-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) were not made. As such, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the workman.

3. The learned Single Judge while considering the evidence of the witness of the management, MW-1, Avinash Kumar, L.D.C., and the fact admitted by him that the management was having a guest house and the workman was working in the said guest house observed that there was no middle-man and the management had failed to prove that employment of the workman was through a labour agency. As such, it was observed that the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act were violated, as eight years of continuous service of the workman had been established. The termination was accordingly held to be illegal. It was observed that the relief awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous, as such, and the workman was held entitled for reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1-workman was never engaged by the appellant. The workman has neither proved any appointment letter nor led any evidence to show that he was appointed in the year 1998, as such, he failed to discharge the onus to prove his appointment. It was further submitted that respondent No. 1- workman has also failed to prove that the appellant is an industry under Section 2 (j) of the Act, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 referring to the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, submitted that the order of reinstatement has been rightly passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

7. The Award passed by the Trib