1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.859/2008 The Registrar, Meharshi Dayanand Saraswati University V/s Prem Singh and anr. 9.9.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.R.D.Rastogi for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant both in limitation matter and also in appeal. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2.1.2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award dated 2.3.2007 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, was dismissed. A reference was made to the Labour Court on the question whether removal of workman-respondent no.1 from service by the appellant-University by order dated 11th May, 2001 was legal and valid and if not, what relief he is entitled to? The learned labour court, on consideration and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, found that the workman-respondent no.1 was engaged in the services of the appellant-University continuously from 1st November, 1996 till 15th May, 2001 and his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The labour Court, therefore, directed that the workman-respondent no.1 shall be reinstated in service with 25% back wages. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition concurring with the findings of the labour court. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant-University has argued that the appellant in their written statement had categorically stated that the workman-respondent no.1 was engaged through the contractor and this fact was asserted by their witness, namely, Dinesh Chaturvedi also. The labour court, therefore, erred in law in directing reinstatement of the workman- respondent no.1. It was further argued that even if it is accepted that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, there should not have been any direction for reinstatement and at best the respondent no.1 could be paid lump sum compensation. On perusal of the award of the labour court, we find that the workman-respondent no.1 has produced as many as nine documents, which included his appointment order and posting order in Secrecy Branch of the appellant-University and certain orders issued by the appellant. All these orders were signed by the authorities of the appellant-University. The appellant, however, did not produce before the labour court any document to show that the respondent no.1- workman was engaged thorough the contractor. The appellant even failed to give the name of so-called contractor and in-fact they have produced only one witness Dinesh Chaturvedi, who in his cross- examination, has admitted the issuance of documents aforesaid by the various authorities of the appellant-University. Although he was specifically asked to point out the name of the contractor, he could not do so. The award of labour court, therefore, was based on cogent and reliable evidence produced by the workman-respondent no.1, which was not at all rebutted by the appellant-University. 3 Furthermore, since the reference was made in 2003 and award was passed in 2007, therefore, in these circumstances, there was no such lapse of time that would justify a direction for payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Thus, we do not find any error or infirmity or illegality in the award of the labour court and also in the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar