JUDGMENT
R.S. Garg, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by order dated 13.07.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8241 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge confirming the findings and award made by the learned Labour Judge in Recovery Application No. 2418 of 1994 disposed of on 09.12.2003 rejecting the application is before this Court.
2. The appellant went to the Labour Court with an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a submission that in view of the relationship of employer and employee he was entitled to certain amounts in his favour. The matter was taken up ex parte and an award was made in favour of he appellant. As the said award/ order could not be executed the present appellant came to the High Court and the High Court issued certain directions in the matter. Thereafter, the employer filed a Letters Patent Appeal, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the learned Labour Court for deciding the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
3. After the remand the learned Labour Court granted proper opportunity to the parties and after hearing them recorded findings that the petitioner failed to prove relationship of employer and employee and also failed to prove that there existed some rights in his favour or he wanted execution of pre-existing rights.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order/ award the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 8241 of 2004. The learned Single Judge rejected the application observing that the present appellant has failed to prove that there existed pre existing rights in favour of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge observed that Section 33-C(2) of the Act would apply to a case where pre existing right exists and in execution or under colour of that right a person goes to the Labour Court for making recovery. The learned Single Judge accordingly rejected the application. The appellant is before us.
5. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence led by the present appellant has not been properly appreciated by the learned Labour Court and in any case from perusal of para 2.4 of the earlier Letters Patent Appeal it would clearly appear that the respondents wanted to settle the matter outside the Court, therefore, the Court ought to have held that there was relationship of employer and employee. Otherwise, there was no reason for the employer to propose settlement outside the Court.
6. Para 2.4 is the ground raised in the appeal memo. The said ground has not been shown to the authorities of the respondent, nor they were asked to explain the pleadings raised in the Letters Patent Appeal. The law relating to admission is clear, it says that if somebody wants to rely upon the admission made by the other side, then the admission is required to be placed before the said officer, authority or person/ witness of the other side and such person would be entitled to an opportunity to explain the admission or his earlier conduct. In the present matter simple reliance on certain statement made in the appeal memo even otherwise cannot be termed to be an admission.
7. So far as the question of appreciation of evidence is concerned we are of the opinion that in the Letters Patent Appeal it would not be open to the High Court to reappreciate the evidence unless the question of perversity is raised, meaning thereby that Court read something which is not in the records or the Court neglected to read something which could have material bearing on the issue in the matter.
8. In the present matter we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court.
9. The learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in rejecting the Special Civil Application. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.