Mukta Gupta, J.:—

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the Industrial Dispute ID No. 704/06/99 wherein the learned Trial Court granted a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the reference was not made by the appropriate government. Petitioner is an autonomous body fully funded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, therefore, only Central Government was competent and authorized to refer the dispute for adjudication. Since in the present case the reference was made by the State Government, which was not a competent authority to make such a reference, the labour court should not have passed the impugned award. Learned counsel lastly contends that the Respondent was engaged with the Petitioner as a daily wager and has remained unauthorizedly absent as a result of which his extension was denied by the Management as such, he is not entitled to any relief.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the award of the learned trial court is well-reasoned and devoid of any illegality. It was passed after proper appraisal of the evidence/material on record and relying on the decision of the Apex Court. The High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the well reasoned award based on proper appreciation of evidence. Reliance is placed on Parshuram Shah vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another, 2008 LLR 256 Delhi in support of this contention. It is further contended that the State Government is the appropriate authority to refer the dispute under the ID Act in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Briefly the case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent was engaged as a plumber with the Petitioner on daily wages w.e.f. 6th June, 1997 and was granted extension on the basis of need of the work. Since his work was not found to be satisfactory and he was also found to be irregular, a warning was issued to him vide letter dated 5th January, 1998. The Respondent did not report for duty in the month of October, 1998, therefore, he was not granted extension and the same fact was made known to him vide letter dated 6th November, 1998. A demand notice was sent by the Respondent to the establishment/society asking it to withdraw the letter declining the grant of extension on 22nd January, 1998. Conciliation proceedings were initiated and on its failure, a reference was made by the State Government in the following terms of reference:

“Whether the services of Sh. Devender Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?’ 6. The question of competence of the Government of NCT of Delhi in making a reference of an industrial dispute in a case where the industry is under the control of Central Government was decided with reference to Rule 2(f) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 in MCD vs. Mahavir, 2002 (95) FLR 974 by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it was held:

“10. Section 38 of the said Act provides for rule making power. In exercise of the said power the Central Government has framed rules known as Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules which came into effect from March 10, 1957. These rules apply to Union Territories and States in relation to industries situated therein in respect whereof the Central Government may be the Appropriate Government. Rule 2 appears with the expression "in these rules".

Rule 2(f) of the said Rules reads thus:

"(f) in relation to an industrial dispute in a Union territory, for which the app