IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.201 of 2011 Date of decision : 6.1.2011 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Ms Continental Engines Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Yesh Paal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has impugned the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon dated 18.1.2010. He had raised a dispute by alleging that he had joined the service of respondent No.1 on 9.9.1996 as Technical Assistant and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,790/- per month as wages and that he had put in more than three years of service when his services were terminated in an illegal manner. The respondent No.1, on the other hand, set up the plea that the petitioner was transferred to their office at New Delhi on 7.1.2000 but he refused to receive the transfer order and absented himself from his duties. Number of reminders were sent to him through registered post on 18.1.2000, 19.2.2000 and 9.3.2000 but he C.W.P.No.201 of 2011 -2- failed to respond. In the backdrop of this the Tribunal upon receiving the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 went into the question as to whether the termination of services of Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner was justified or not and whether he was entitled to some relief or not. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had abandoned his services and it was not a case of termination as alleged by him. Consequently, the reference was declined. Aggrieved by the said the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to allege that the impugned award is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law, as the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon has failed to take into consideration the case as set up by the petitioner and the accompanying evidence and material to support his case. I have considered the arguments raised before this Court and have perused the impugned award. The petitioner being an employee of respondent No.1 was expected to accept the order of transfer which was otherwise in conformity with his appointment letter. Instead of joining at the place of transfer he chose not to accept such order of transfer and evaded his duties without any cogent explanation. The respondent No.1 as an employer made several attempts by sending registered letters to him the receipt of which cannot be denied by the petitioner as they were sent under registered cover raising a presumption that the same were C.W.P.No.201 of 2011 -3- delivered to him. In this backdrop the plea of the petitioner that his services had been terminated cannot be accepted. Even otherwise this is purely a question of fact and cannot be determined and no infirmity in law has been shown to have been committed by the Tribunal while answering the reference. There is thus no ground to interfere. Dismissed. 6.1.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss