LPA No. 1752 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1752of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.2.2011 Satpal …..Appellant vs. The Presiding Officer and another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: - Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 27.1.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the Award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Gurgaon dated 18.2.2008 was dismissed. Appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was engaged as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994 but his services have been dispensed with on 30.6.1999 in an illegal manner. The dispute raised by the appellant led to the Award dated 18.2.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court wherein the reference raised by the appellant was declined. In the writ petition filed by the appellant-workman, learned Single Judge of this Court have returned a finding that the appellant has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination and, thus granted compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. In respect of violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ‘Act’), it has been held that there is no pleading raised by the appellant before the 1 LPA No. 1752 of 2010 learned Labour Court nor in the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise such ground in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that there is no pleading in respect of violation of Section 25-G of the Act are factually incorrect. However, it could not be disputed that the appellant has not disputed the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court declining the claim of the appellant in terms of Section 25-G of the Act in the writ petition filed challenging the Award dated 18.2.2008. The evidence of the appellant before the learned Labour Court was that his junior Surender s/o Dal Chand and others were retained in service. The appellant has not disclosed that how Surender Singh is junior to him and as to whether he was engaged in the same establishment or in a different establishment. Be as it may. The fact remains that the learned Labour Court has returned a finding that no evidence in this regard has been adduced. Such findings recorded by learned Labour Court were not disputed in any manner in the writ petition filed by the appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant has not challenged the findings of the learned Labour Court in the writ petition before this Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly declined to entertain the plea regarding the violation of Section 25-G of the Act. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.2.2011 (GURDEV SINGH) preeti JUDGE 2