JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. (Oral) - CMP(M) No. 212 of 2017 1. The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the accompanying appeal. It has been explained that on receipt of certified copy of judgment of the learned Single Judge, the matter was put up before the Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH, Shimla, who referred the case to the Government and after taking the legal opinion, further steps were taken to file the appeal, due to which, delay of 72 days has occurred. 2. There is no serious opposition to the prayer made in the application and accordingly, the same is allowed and delay of 72 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. LPA No. 59 of 2018. 3. This Intra Court Appeal assails order dated 20th August, 2016, vide which, learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant''s writ petition and has upheld the award dated 14th May, 2013, passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. Vide the said award, the respondent workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 15th November, 2000, with continuity of service and seniority, except back wages. 4. The issue which fell for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge is whether there was violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while retrenching the respondent-workman? 5. There is a concurrent finding of fact that respondent was engaged as a daily wager in the I&PH Division, Dalhousie in October, 1995 and he continued to serve till 15.11.2000. During this period, he worked for more than 240 days in the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. It has also come on record that while retrenching the respondent workman, his juniors including Shri Hem Raj and Smt. Biasa Devi were retained in service. It thus stood established on record that while retrenching the respondent, the principle of ''last come fist go'' was not followed. Similarly, there is a finding of fact that after retrenching the respondent, some more persons were engaged, though on compassionate grounds, but at that time, respondent was not offered appointment. 6. In the light of these concurrent findings of fact, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, warranting interference in this Intra Court Appeal. 6. In the light of these concurrent findings of fact, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, warranting interference in this Intra Court Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.