IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1004 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.8.2010 Tilak Raj … Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Ind.Tribunal cum Labour Court Rohtak and others. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge that the workman has not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and therefore, no violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 could be noticed. We are unable to find any legal infirmity in the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we are not inclined to pass any order in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 53 days delay in filing this appeal. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 18.08.2010 sd