LPA No. 354 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 354 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 31.01.2011 Sh. Lal Chand son of Late Sh. Mangal Singh (Conductor), r/o H.No. 63, Housing Board Colony, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar. ......Appellant Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amrit Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 974 of 2009 Delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 354 of 2010 With the consent of the parties final orders in the LPA are being passed. The challenge herein is against an order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the learned Labour Court dismissing the reference brought at the instance of the workman. The LPA No. 354 of 2010 2 learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the appellant/workman had failed to prove that he had rendered 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calendar year so as to enable a declaration to be made that his termination was by way of retrenchment which was so made without following the mandate as prescribed by Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The questions raised in the appeal are pure questions of fact. Learned Counsel for the appellant/workman, while admitting the same has, tried to place before the Court the materials adduced by him by filing a supplementary application i.e. C.M. No. 3921 of 2010. A perusal of the said miscellaneous application and the documents appended thereto would go to show that the appellant/workman has come into possession of information from the Employees Provident Fund Organization which would go to show that he was employed from the year 1997-1998 to 2003-2004. The said information was obtained by the appellant under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. On the said basis it is contended that the aforesaid additional information be taken on record or supplementary/additional evidence be allowed to be led before the learned Labour Court. The award of the learned Labour Court passed in the present case is of the year 2008. If the appellant/workman wanted any relevant fact to be brought on record he ought to have done it at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. LPA No. 354 of 2010 3 This was not so done. Instead, at the stage of the present LPA the said materials have been placed before the Court. The additional evidence, if at all, has to be led before the learned Labour Court and not before the Writ Court. The learned Labour Court would not be empowered to permit any such additional evidence unless the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. If on the basis of the materials on record the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the appellant/workman had failed to prove his continuous employment for 240 days, we do not see how the order of the learned Single can be faulted. Even otherwise, to permit additional evidence to be brought on record would require the learned Labour Court to recall its award. There is no power of review vested in the learned Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We are, therefore, of the view that on the facts presented before the learned Labour Court the conclusion reached by the said forum was correct and the affirmation of the said order by the learned Single Judge assailed before us will not require any interference. The Appeal consequently is not being entertained any further. Dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 31.01.2011 Amodh