1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1454/2008 Assistant Engineer PHED V/s Surendra Kumar & ors. 21.10.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.S.S.Sharma, Government Counsel for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Goyal for the respondents. There is a delay of 207 days in filing this appeal. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this appeal in time. Delay in filing this appeal is, therefore, condoned and the matter is heard on merit. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and award passed by the labour court, has argued that the findings to the effect that the appellants have violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”) have been erroneously recorded. It is contended that the finding recorded by the labour court in respect of three workmen that they were engaged after retrenchment of the writ-petitioner-respondent is wholly erroneous. Such finding could not have been recorded in absence of those workmen. Learned counsel further submitted that the writ-petitioner-respondent did not complete 240 days of continuous service in a calender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment and, therefore, the direction of the labour court for reinstatement of the writ petitioner- respondent was not justified and the learned Single 2 Judge of this Court erred in upholding the award. We have carefully examined the award and also the judgment passed by the Single Judge of this Court. The contention that there was no basis for recording the findings of violation of provisions of Section 25H of the ID Act by the appellants, cannot be accepted because evidence of the workman has proved that while he was removed on 6th June, 1989, the appellants have engaged new workmen, namely, Prahlad on 6.9.1989, Mahendra Pal on 26.3.1990 and Dinesh on 26.7.1990. The learned labour court while directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner-respondent held that he would be entitled to 30% back wages only, but the learned Single Judge has partly modified the award by directing that the writ petitioner-respondent would not be entitled to any back wages. The contention that the workmen, with regard to whom findings have been recorded by the labour court that they were engaged after retrenchment of the writ petitioner-respondent, should have been impleaded as party, cannot be accepted, as for proving violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the ID Act, their impleadment was not at all necessary. We also do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that for directing the reinstatement of the writ petitioner- respondent upon proven violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the ID Act, it was necessary for the respondent-workman to additionally prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment. We, therefore, do not find any error, illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the labour court 3 and also in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar