IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 773 of 2010. Date of Decision : April 05, 2010. M/s Deepak Pneumatics (P) Ltd. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad. ..... Respondent . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ashish Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned Award dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad. Counsel for the petitioner/Company contends that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, is based merely on the statements made by the Management Witnesses without taking into consideration the records, which were produced before it. He contends that the lock out notices were pasted on the notice board of the petitioner/Company, which aspect had not been taken care of by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, while allowing the reference in favour of the Workmen. He contends that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, thus cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner/Company and have gone through the records of the case. The basic question with regard to the declaration of the lock out as has been projected by respondents (petitioner/Company herein) in their response to the claim submitted by the Workmen was that because of tool down strike, which was resorted to by the workers from 02.07.1998 to 19.07.1998, the petitioner/Company had to declare a lock out since 20.07.1998. This aspect of the case was duly considered by the Labour Court. C.W.P. No. 773 of 2010. -2- Detailed reasons, while considering the evidence led by the parties have been made in paras 15 and 16 of the impugned Award. The Labour Court on consideration of the evidence led by the parties and specifically in the light of the admissions made by the Management Witnesses in their cross examination before the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that there was no tool down strike on the part of the Workmen but, as a matter of fact, the lock out, which was declared by the petitioner/Company, was because of the reason that the electricity was dis-connected due to non deposit of the bill. Further there was no raw material available in the month of June,1998 with the petitioner/Company. No documentary evidence had been produced before the Labour Court, which would show that the production had been slowed down in the month of June, 1998, as alleged by the petitioner/Company. The notices, which were alleged to have been pasted on the notice board, had not been produced before the Labour Court nor had any document been produced before the Labour Court to show that the said notices were sent to the Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer or to the Labour Inspector or to any other Authority of the Labour Department. In the absence of any evidence in support of the contention made by the petitioner/Company, while opposing the claim of the Workmen and also in the light of the admissions made by the Management Witnesses in their cross examination, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, are fully justified and in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 05, 2010. sjks.