JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The only grievance of the appellant at this stage is that when the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.1.2000, none of the counsel was present and therefore, he had no opportunity of hearing to place his case before the learned Single Judge. The grievance appears to be justified to this extent.
3. However looking to the age of the case and with the consent of the parties, we heard the appeal on the merit of the challenge to the award passed by the learned Labour Court.
4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect to the merit of the award is that since the services of the respondent have been terminated in the year 1984 after about two years of service, the reference has been made in the year 1994 after about 10 years of the termination order, no order of reinstatement ought to have been made. It appears that in the ground of the appeal, the appellant has also challenged the validity of reference having been entertained after about eight years of the termination order as well as the plea that the respondent workman has left service voluntarily.
5. It is in the terms of grounds taken by the appellant in writ petition that the learned Single Judge has decided the petition on merit.
6. Having taken into consideration the contention raised before us and the material placed alongwith the writ petition, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in the award. So far as the validity of reference is concerned, it is not invalidated merely because the Appropriate Government in the present case State Government has made reference after lapse of long time. There is no time limit for making reference. In our opinion, it is not permissible for the appellant to challenge the order merely on the ground that the reference has been made after about eight years from the alleged date of termination. The finding about the fact that the workman has not voluntarily retired from the job, is a finding of fact.
7. The solitary contention raised before us about the relief of reinstatement, in our opinion cannot be considered as an error which is required to be interfered with by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is true that in the given circumstances, the Labour Court may resort to depart from the ordinary rules to reinstate with back wages when he finds the retrenchment to be valid.
8. In this case, the relief has been granted to the appellant by the Labour Court which ordinary follows finding of termination to be invalid. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this appeal on merit also. The appeal hereby fails and is accordingly dismissed.
9. No costs.