IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14393 of 2011 The Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patnacity, Karbigahiya, Patna-1. Versus 1. The Irrigation Kamgar Union, Kedar Bhawan, Amar Nath Road, Patna-1. 2. Prem Shankar Sharma S/O Sri Ramjee Sharma R/O Vill.-Babu M/H, P.O. And P.S.-Mahnar, Distt.-Vaishali. ----------- 02. 19.10.2011 Decision of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court dated 31.1.2011 contained in Annexure-7, arising from Reference Case No.09 of 2009/07 of 1994 is under challenge in the present writ application. The origin of the case is reference made under section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in relation to the so-called retrenchment of respondent No.2 while he was working as a daily wage peon in Punpun Flood Protection Sub Division, Fatuha. Reference so made is : “Whether the retrenchment of Sri Prem Shankar Sharma, Daily Wages Peon, Punpun Flood Protection Sub- Division, Fatuha, Patna is proper? If not, what relief he is entitled to?” The earlier award made by the Tribunal on 17.4.1997 was set aside and remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication because it was an ex prate award. Therefore, the Court wanted to give an opportunity to the management to place their case. Short facts are that the petitioner was engaged, may 2 be on a daily wage basis, to work under the respondent authorities after his appointment on 1.6.1979. His work was satisfactory till 31.3.1982. By verbal or oral order issued by the Assistant Engineer namely, Shri B N Singh, his service was terminated/he was retrenched w.e.f. 1.4.1982. Matter was taken up by the Union on behalf of the Workman and only after much effort that reference under the Industrial Dispute Act came to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. The present award, based on evidence, has held the retrenchment to be bad in law and a direction was issued for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Submission of the counsel representing the State is that the workman had voluntarily given up his service, did not report to the management for a long time and only in order to bargain or get a foot-hold in the service, the present case has been instituted at the behest of the Union. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was shown the door by the management as no reflection of any kind is available on record in this regard. Submission of the counsel for the State would have merited consideration provided such a stand was made before the tribunal and was established by way of evidence, oral or otherwise. The Court has gone through the award and is constrained to record that despite opportunity having been given to the management by the High Court in the earlier round 3 of litigation, the management has not bothered or cared to produce any evidence of any kind which would support their case. Contrary thereto Union or the workman has produced evidence which was deliberated and a finding reached. The award can be declared to be bad provided it is vitiated on many a grounds including mis-appreciation of evidence or a finding given despite no evidence. But that is not the case in the present dispute. If there was failure on the part of the management to produce evidence in support of their case whereas the workman has been able to produce evidence supporting his case, then merely because award does not suit the management it does not mean it will be required to be interfered with. In absence of any glaring infirmity having been pointed out in the award as such, submissions on factual aspect will not be entertained by the High Court to interfere with the same. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)