LPA No. 908 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 908 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 Sports Authority of India …Appellant Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate for the appellant(s) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of three appeals* as they are directed against the common judgment dated 23.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions in limine. The only issue raised before the Labour Court as well as before the learned Single Judge by the appellant-establishment was whether the appellant-establishment is an industry. The Labour Court has categorically held that if the days for which every workman has worked as casual labour after expiry of 89 days of contractual appointment, every workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination. On account of non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'), they were ordered to be reinstated with back wages. Accordingly, we do not find any valid ground to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we clarify that the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health LPA No. 908 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana) (2010) 5 SCC 497 may not have laid down the principle that violation of Section 25-F of the Act would entitle to a workman to reinstatement. All the same, the principle of law well settled by catena of judgment needs not be noticed. Therefore, the appeals do no warrant admission. 2. Accordingly, the applications filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 61 days delay along with the appeals are dismissed. 3. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Atul * Sr. No. Party name Writ Petition No. 1 Sports Authority of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and another LPA No. 908 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Sports Authority of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and another LPA No. 909 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Sports Authority of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and another LPA No. 910 of 2011 (O&M) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Atul