1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.493/07 State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Babulal Mahatma & Anr. Date : 27.04.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Dy. Government Advocate. None present for the respondents. ________ We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merit. The appellant has challenged the award of Labour Court dated 10th March, 2003 holding termination of services of respondent Shri Babulal workman to be a case of invalid retrenchment and directing reinstatement with 30% back wages. The award dated 10th March, 2003 was subjected to challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6276/2003 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgmnt dated 14th January, 2005 under appeal. 2 The learned Single Judge has found that the finding of fact about the employment of respondent-workman under the appellant and his continuous employment over a period of one year with the respondnet are findings of facts recorded on cogent material and admittedly, the compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was not made inasmuch as the employer had denied that the employee-employer relationship exist between them. From the perusal of the award, it appears that a total false plea was taken on behalf of the present appellant to non-suit the respondent workman. The appelants denied to have employed the respondnet workman as a Driver on its establishment of the Water Shed Development and Soil Conservation Department, Nagaur. The officer appeaaring on behalf of the appelalnt has went on to say that he was employed for 56 days for which the payment was made by the officer out of his own pocket. All these facts were belied on by the log 3 book which was got produced before the Labour Court which had shown that the regular attendance of the respondnet workman was marked in it. In these circumstances, the leaned Single Judge has not interfered with the finding recorded by the Labour Court which in our opinion was justified and does not call for any interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [BHANWAROO KHAN], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/ 4 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.DR(J)2413/2005 Date : 27.04.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Dy. Government Advocate. None present for the respondents. ________ In spite of service none has appeared for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal within limitation is condoned. The appeal may now be registered regularly. [BHANWAROO KHAN], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/