An intra-court appeal cannot entertain a new factual plea of gainful employment unsupported by evidence.

The workman alleged that the management terminated his employment on 1 March 2015 without notice or retrenchment compensation; the management maintained that he had voluntarily left after a full-and-final settlement.

After the management stopped appearing before the Labour Court, it was proceeded ex parte. The Labour Court found that the termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarded full back wages calculated at minimum wages from the termination date to the Award, with interest in default.

The management’s writ petition challenging the Award was dismissed, and its subsequent appeal relied on an ESIC portal printout to contend that the workman had been gainfully employed during the back-wage period.

The management acknowledged that this additional fact had not been raised before either the Labour Court or the Single Judge.

1. Whether the Division Bench could consider, for the first time in a Letters Patent Appeal, the management’s claim that the workman had been gainfully employed, based on an unverified ESIC portal printout.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the management’s writ petition disclosed perversity, illegality, or other infirmity warranting appellate interference.

A Letters Patent Appeal is an intra-court appeal concerned with the correctness of the Single Judge’s decision on the material before that Judge; it is not a forum for a fresh adjudication on new facts.

Interference is warranted where the judgment under appeal suffers from patent error, perversity, or manifest illegality (*Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple*, (1996) 3 SCC 52; *Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen of Narendra & Company*, (2016) 3 SCC 340).

Whether a workman was gainfully employed is a question of fact requiring pleadings, evidence, and an opportunity for rebuttal.

A party that did not contest the evidence before the forum of fact cannot reopen its factual foundation at the appellate stage.

The gainful-employment contention was raised for the first time in the appeal and rested on an uncertified, unproved printout whose contents had not been put to the workman.

Determining whether, and for what period, the workman was employed elsewhere required evidence and an opportunity to respond, neither of which could be supplied in the intra-court appeal.

The management had an opportunity to cross-examine the workman and lead evidence before the Labour Court but stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte; the workman’s testimony therefore remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

The new contention did not establish any patent error, perversity, or illegality in the Single Judge’s decision.

It upheld the judgment dated 13 May 2026 and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit; pending applications were disposed of.