LPA No.539/2009 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10. + LPA 539/2009 RAJENDRA PRASAD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Adv. versus INDCOM INVESTMENT SERVICE ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR O R D E R % 14.12.2009 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th August, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 864/2009. 2. The challenge in the said writ petition was to an award dated 19.5.2007 passed by the Labour Court holding that the appellant workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service and that consequently he was not covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). It was further held that the appellant had not placed on record any termination order from which it could be ascertained that some allegations were leveled against him which led to his termination without enquiry, thereby casting a stigma. 3. The learned single Judge affirmed the Award of the Labour Court. 4. The appellant sought to rely on two letters dated 16.9.2005 and 3.10.2005 annexed to the statement of claim wherein it was stated that services of the appellant stood terminated w.e.f. 17.9.2005. 5. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, was that the appellant was employed only on a trial basis on 1.6.2005 and that he worked till 17.8.2005 when he abandoned his services. The Labour Court has noted that even according to the appellant, he worked only till 17.9.2005. Therefore, the total period for which the appellant had worked with the LPA No.539/2009 Page 2 of 2 respondent was only around 140 days. Consequently, it was held that there was no question of applicability of Section 25-F of the ID Act. 6. The above being a pure question of fact and the findings of the Labour Court not suffering from any perversity, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present appeal. 7. It was contended by Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant may have been appointed only on a temporary basis and for less than 140 days, he could not have been dismissed from service without compliance with the principles of natural justice. Reliance was sought to be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in U.B. Dutt & Co. v. Its Workmen, 1962 I LLJ 374, Murugan Mills v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1965 SC 1496, Bihar State Road Transport Corp. v. State of Bihar, (1970) 3 SCR 708, Air India Corporation v. VA Rebellow (1972) 1 SCC 814, Government Branch Press v. D.B. Bellippa, (1979) 1 SCC 477, L Michael v. M/s Johnson Pumps Ltd., (1975) 1 SCC 574. 8. We are unable to accept the above submission. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel do not lay down that even where the appointment, not being an appointment under the State, is purely of a temporary nature, and where the period of employment is less than 240 days, and where the removal does not cause any stigma, the principles of natural justice require a prior notice followed by an enquiry. 9. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR, J DECEMBER 14, 2009 pk