JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi and J.K. Ranka, JJ. Instant intra court appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-11-2013 confirming Award of the Labour Court dated 23-3-2011. 2. However, office has pointed delay in filing present special appeal in support thereof application has been filed seeking condonation of delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act. 3. Notices are duly served but no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-workman despite service. 4. We have heard counsel for appellant on the application seeking condonation of delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act and find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained, duly supported by affidavit and deserves to be condoned. 5. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. 6. Brief facts of the case as noticed by the Ld. Labour Court in its award impugned dated 23-3-2011 are that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages basis in the Guest House of appellant-MDS University, Ajmer from 1-1-1998 and was paid Rs. 22/- per day and discharged his duties upto 10-1-2006, however, during the interregnum period his daily wage from time to time was increased from Rs. 22/- to Rs. 32/-, to Rs. 60/- and finally at the time when his services came to be dispensed with he was getting Rs. 73/- per day. After the dispute being raised the Government made reference vide its notification dated 15-11-2007. We consider it appropriate to quote the reference made by the Government for adjudication of the dispute, which reads ad infra :- ^^D;k izkFkhZ dks vikFkhZ }kjk Jfed ds :i esa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk \ ;fn ;gka gka rks] D;k dqylfpo] egf"kZ n;kuan ljLorh fo'kofo|ky;] vtesj }kjk Jh xqekuflag jkor iq= Jh ikapwflag dks fnaukd 10-1-2006 ls lsok i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha rks] Jfed fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \** 7. The case set up by the respondent-workman in his statement of claim is that he was engaged on daily rate basis w.e.f. 1-1-1998 in the University Guest House and initially was paid Rs. 22/- per day and at the time when his services came to be dispensed with in January, 2006 was getting Rs. The case set up by the respondent-workman in his statement of claim is that he was engaged on daily rate basis w.e.f. 1-1-1998 in the University Guest House and initially was paid Rs. 22/- per day and at the time when his services came to be dispensed with in January, 2006 was getting Rs. 73/- per day and placed the available documentary evidence in support of his claim which he could be able to collect and as there was bald denial by the appellant University in their written statement even in regard to his engagement & the workman alleged that he had worked from January,1998 to January,2006 and while denying his claim the appellant-employer alleged that he was not even engaged. 8. The Ld. Labour Court after taking note of the primary & secondary evidence which came on record, in para-12 & 16 of the Award impugned recorded finding of fact based on the documentary evidence, supported by the statement of the claimant, arrived to a conclusion that the workman had worked for the period from January,1998 to January,2006 and was paid wages and while holding that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months held that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ("Act,1947") & accordingly while answering the reference in affirmative terms passed the award impugned dated 23-3-2011 holding the workman entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service & 50% back wages, which was the subject matter of challenge by filing writ petition at the instance of the appellant-employer before the learned Single Judge and the only submission made by the appellant was that engagement of the respondent-workman was through contractor and he has wrongly been treated to be employee of the University and such engagement was otherwise not on permanent basis but only engaged through contractor for intermediate period, hence award for reinstatement along with 50% back wages may not be valid & justified. 9. The Ld. learned Single Judge under its order impugned made a reference of the term 'workman' u/S 2(s) as exits in the State amendment vide Rajasthan Act 34 of 1958, Section 3 (w.e.f.1-7-1960). 9. The Ld. learned Single Judge under its order impugned made a reference of the term 'workman' u/S 2(s) as exits in the State amendment vide Rajasthan Act 34 of 1958, Section 3 (w.e.f.1-7-1960). The same is quoted ad infra :- "2(s):-"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) "by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer" to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, 9 that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person: (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." 10. The Ld. Single Judge while dealing with the submissions in its order observed that the definition of the workman includes such of the workman who are engaged through a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any skilled or unskilled for hire or reward the appellant employer remains his principal employer and under these facts & circumstances held that even if the respondent-workman was engaged through contractor still he remains & covered under the definition of workman of the petitioner university who being the principal employer is liable to follow provisions of the Act,1947 before affecting retrenchment and found no perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the Ld. Labour Court holding that the respondent being a workman, the alleged termination of his services certainly attracts provisions of Section 25F of the Act,1947 and dismiss the writ petition preferred at the instance of the appellant-University under its order impugned dated 6-11-2013. 11. Sh. Ravi Chirania, Counsel for appellant with all of his usual vehemence submits that the finding recorded by the Ld. Labour Court & confirmed by the learned Single Judge is perverse & not supported even by tangible evidence on record and submits that in the statement of the workman recorded as DW1 and the document exhibited nowhere indicates being signed or issued from the office of the University and according to him inference which has been drawn by the Ld. Labour Court being perverse is untenable/unsustainable in law and that certainly requires interference by this Court and further submits that if such practices are being allowed to continue it will lead to a bad precedent & it is for this Court to curb such practice if adopted by the employer including the University as such. 12 The submissions made by counsel for appellant is without substance for the reason that the finding of fact has been recorded by the Ld. Labour Court under its award dated 23-3-2011 & confirmed by the Ld. Single Judge and the only submission made before the learned Single Judge while questioning the impugned award was that the workman was engaged through contractor & wrongly treated to be employee of the petitioner University and his engagement otherwise is not on permanent basis for the intermediate period through contractor as such may not invoke his reinstatement with 50% the back wages. 13. 13. His contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge taking note of the definition of the term workman as it exists in the State amendment and we do find that the definition of the term 'workman' includes the person engaged through contractor and that being so the present appellant being the principal employer was under obligation to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act,1947 and as per the finding on record the respondent-workman worked from January, 1998 till January, 2006 at least for almost eight years in the University Guest House on daily wage basis, taking note of the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court & confirmed by the learned Single Judge and so also the submissions made before us, mere submissions may not be suffice unless supported either by the material which has been appreciated by the learned Labour Court or there is any documentary evidence in rebuttal which the learned counsel failed to place on record for appreciation by the Court. 14. This Court can take note of the fact that the workman is under litigation since 2006 and after a long battle able to persuade the Ld. Labour Court that he was engaged & worked for almost eight years on daily wages, deserves indulgence and the learned Labour Court came to his rescue after recording finding of fact that he had worked on daily wage basis for at least eight years from January, 1998 to January, 2006 and deserves indulgence and after the award came to be passed in 2011 at least five years rolled by now and still has not been complied with by the appellant so far and even after initiating proceedings u/S 29 of the Act against the University still he is unable to get fruits of long litigation and this appears to be a reason for which the Parliament has made an amendment by inserting Section 17(B) to provide some subsistence allowance to the workman pending litigation. 15. After hearing counsel for appellant, we do not find substance in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, at the same time we consider it appropriate to direct the appellant to comply the Award of the Ld. 15. After hearing counsel for appellant, we do not find substance in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, at the same time we consider it appropriate to direct the appellant to comply the Award of the Ld. Labour Court dated 23-3-2011 & necessary orders be passed within a period of one month from today and we further make it clear if the Award is not being complied within the period stipulated, the respondent-workman will be at liberty to approach this Court by filing misc. application for initiating proceedings against the authorised officer of the appellant for deliberate defiance of the directions of the Court.