TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 136 of the Constitution. It is more so when we find that the finding on this question is neither against any evidence adduced by the parties nor against any provision of law and nor it is perverse - Indeed, this Court has held that the proceedings under Section 17B of ID Act are independent proceedings in nature and are not dependent upon the final order passed in the main proceedings. Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7545-7546 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - Abhay Manohar Sapre And Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 29.11.2007 and 05.02.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve in this Court. 8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 9. Heard Mr. Devvrat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Debal Banerji, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. 11. The main question, which arose for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, was whether the appellant (workman) was in continuous service of respondent No.1(Employer) for one ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set up by both the parties, rightly came to a conclusion that the appellant (workman) did not work continuously for one year with respondentNo.1(employer). 17. This question, we cannot now again examine de novo in our appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is more so when we find that the finding on this question is neither against any evidence adduced by the parties nor against any provision of law and nor it is perverse. 18. So far as the decision in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd.(supra), which is relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, is concerned, suffice it to say, the same, in our view, is distinguishable on facts. We, therefore, find no ground to place reliance on this decision to set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
