Rajeev Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash Dy. Conservator Of Forest

By this special appeal, a challenge is made to the order of learned Single Judge dated 24th October, 2017.

It is a case where the appellant-workman raised a dispute alleging illegal retrenchment. On a reference, the parties led evidence. The Labour Court

made scrutiny of evidence and found that the workman has failed to prove his working for 240 days in preceding twelve calendar months from the

date of retrenchment or in a given year. The details of working in each year was specifically referred after marshalling the evidence of both the

parties. The reference was accordingly answered against the workman. The appellant-workman filed a writ petition to challenge the award of the

Labour Court but finding no illegality therein, it was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an application to summon the documents was filed before the Labour Court. An order on it was passed

but documents were not produced by the non-appellant No.1. The aforesaid is sufficient to prove working of the workman for more than 240 days in

preceding twelve calendar months from the date of retrenchment or in a given year. In view of the above, the Labour Court should have answered the

reference in favour of the workman.

We have considered the only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant for challenge to the award of the Labour Court as well as the order

of learned Single Judge. We do not find any argument on the issue raised before this Court for the first time, moreso when, it is factual in nature. The

perusal of the award does not show any argument in reference to an application to summon the documents and an order passed thereupon. In view of

the above, the Labour Court considered the issue raised before it and, accordingly, answered the reference against the workman finding working of

few days in each year and not of 240 days. Before learned Single Judge also, the argument raised herein was not advanced, thereby, learned Single

Judge considered the issue raised before it and finding no error in the award, dismissed the writ petition. The special appeal has been filed without

pleading that though the argument raised herein was raised before the Labour Court and Single Bench yet it was not considered.

In view of the above, what comes is that the appellant did not raise the issue before the Labour Court and learned Single Judge, as raised herein. It is

moreso when, it requires finding of fact. Accordingly, we cannot allow the appellant to raise the issue for the first time when there is no pleading to

the effect that the issue aforesaid was raised before the Labour Court and learned Single Judge but has not been dealt with.

Arguments on the application for taking certain documents on record were also heard.Â

The appellant wants to place on record the documents which were not submitted before learned Single Judge thus cannot be accepted now in appeal

which is to challenge the order of learned Single Judge.

The application for taking additional documents on record is dismissed accordingly.

We do not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court or in the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the special appeal is

dismissed.

An application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was filed.

Since the appeal has been considered on merit and dismissed, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed as otherwise we do not find

justified reason to condone the delay in filing appeal.