JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. CMP(M) No. 645 of 2017 By medium of this application, the applicant/appellant has sought condonation of 138 days’ delay that has crept up in filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit of the Company Secretary of the appellant, we find that the applicant/appellant has carved out sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, delay of 138 days’ in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. LPA No.67 of 2017. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant is directed against the judgment passed by the learned writ Court on 30.08.2016 in CWP No. 6151 of 2010 whereby it upheld the award passed in favour of the workman by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short “Labour Court”). 3. Bereft of any un-necessary details, the facts are that upon a reference, the workman filed his claim petition which was answered in his favour by the learned Labour Court with the direction to reinstate him in service with seniority and continuity with effect from 01.12.1996 without back wages. 4. The award was assailed by the appellant by filing aforesaid CWP before the learned writ Court on the ground of illegality, no relationship of Employee/Employer, the respondent not being a workman etc., however, all these pleas were turned down by the learned writ Court by passing a detailed judgment. 5. Undeterred, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned writ Court had fallen in error in not taking into consideration that the award passed in favour of the workman suffered from illegality and perversity as it was not a case of retrenchment as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “Act”) and, therefore, the workman could not have been ordered to be reinstated in service. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that all these issues have been dealt with in detail by the learned writ Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that all these issues have been dealt with in detail by the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court came to a categoric conclusion that the workman was appointed as Pharmacist in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, (for short “DDU Hospital”), Shimla, on contract basis vide letter dated 22.07.1995, however, since there was no shop at the aforesaid hospital, therefore, the workman was made to join in the Office of the Corporation with the assurance that as and when the construction work of shop at ‘DDU’ hospital would be completed, he would be engaged therein in terms of the agreement dated 22.07.1995. This work was not even assigned by the appellant and it was infact admitted that the workman had been assigned the job of miscellaneous work which included release of consignment of medicines from Transport Company and handing over of the kits/boxes of medicines to the transporter for dispatching to various destinations. The specific stand of the appellant was that since the workman had failed to work to its satisfaction, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and show cause notice to this effect was issued vide Ex.RF calling upon him to explain his conduct. As per the appellant, the workman had submitted his reply Ex.RG, but the same was not found satisfactory and thereafter inquiry was initiated against him wherein one Shri S.L. Bragta was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, who found him to be at fault and ultimately vide order Ex.RM the services of the workman were dispensed with immediate effect. 7. Notably, the only plea put forth by the appellant before the learned Labour Court was that the workman had left the job of his own in November, 1996 and on that basis the learned Labour Court had framed the following issues including the issue of abandonment which was framed as Issue No.1:- “1. Whether Shri Ajay Sood left the job, on his own, in November, 1996 as per the statement of respondent? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner is not a workman and the petition is not maintainable? OPR.” 8. Whether Shri Ajay Sood left the job, on his own, in November, 1996 as per the statement of respondent? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner is not a workman and the petition is not maintainable? OPR.” 8. It would be noticed that on the one hand, the specific stand of the appellant was that the workman had of his own abandoned the job, whereas, on the other hand, it was averred that since the work of the workman was not found satisfactory, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in accordance with law and thereafter his services were dispensed with. Reconciling both these positions, the learned writ Court rejected the plea of abandonment. 9. Dealing with the plea of the appellant regarding the services of the workman being terminated in the disciplinary proceedings, the same was turned down on the ground that the appellant had not been able to prove on record that the disciplinary proceedings were allegedly initiated against the workman. 10. It would be noticed from the issues framed that the only plea raised by the appellant was with regard to abandonment which was turned down by the learned writ Court by holding that in teeth of the specific defence raised by the appellant that the services of the workman were terminated on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court as upheld by the learned writ Court. In case the issues as reproduced hereinabove are perused, it would be noticed that the specific stand of the appellant is that the workman on his own abandoned the job, however, when it came down to leading evidence, it insisted that the services of the workman were dispensed with on the basis of the inquiry held against him which was contrary to the plea so raised in the defence before the learned Labour Court. 12. Even if this plea of holding inquiry is examined, it would be noticed that the appellant did not even bother to examine the Inquiry Officer Shri S.L. Bragta, who is alleged to have conducted the inquiry. 12. Even if this plea of holding inquiry is examined, it would be noticed that the appellant did not even bother to examine the Inquiry Officer Shri S.L. Bragta, who is alleged to have conducted the inquiry. Not only this, even the inquiry report was not placed before the learned Labour Court so as to gather as to whether the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer were in accordance with law or not. 13. It is more than settled that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court as a result of appreciation of pleadings and evidence cannot be questioned in a writ petition and, therefore, obviously cannot be made subject-matter before an appellate Court. 14. At this stage, it shall also be profitable to refer to a recent judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another 2016(3) SLC 1549 wherein similar issue came up before this Court and it was held as under:- “12. It is also a moot question – whether the Writ Court in a writ petition or an Appellate Court in an appeal can interfere with the finding of facts, which was made foundation by the Labour Court while making the award? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: 13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3157, held that the findings of fact reached by Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ proceedings and the Writ Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. It is profitable to reproduce para 18 of the judgment herein: “18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” 14. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 4622 of 2013, titled as M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. versus State of HP and another, being the lead case, decided on 04.08.2014. It is worthwhile to reproduce para 13 of the judgment herein: "13. Applying the test to the instant case, the question of fact determined by the Tribunal cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition and more so, when the writ petitioners have failed to prove the defence raised, in answer to the references before the Tribunal." 15. This Court in a series of cases, being CWP No. 4622 of 2013 (supra); LPA No. 485 of 2012, titled as Arpana Kumari versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11th August, 2014; LPA No. 23 of 2006, titled as Ajmer Singh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21st August, 2014; LPA No. 125 of 2014, titled as M/s. Delux Enterprises versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & others, decided on 21st October, 2014; LPA No. 143 of 2015, titled as Gurcharan Singh (deceased) through its LRs versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 15th December, 2015, and LPA No. 207 of 2015, titled as State of H.P. and another versus Gagan Singh, decided on 16th December, 2015, while relying upon the latest decision of the Apex Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi's case (supra), has held that question of fact cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court. However, such findings can be questioned if it is shown that the Tribunal/Court has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned findings.” 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no fault can be found with the award passed by the learned Labour Court as affirmed by the learned writ Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.