IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6445 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 29, 2009. Satnam Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 06.10.2008 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding therein that the services of the workman were terminated in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is true that the workman was issued chargesheet and thereafter inquiry was ordered to be held against him. However, during the inquiry proceedings merely because the workman had admitted his absence from duty, the inquiry officer has proceeded to give finding against him. An application was submitted by the workman for seeking assistance in the departmental inquiry which was never decided merely because he had admitted the charges levelled against him and the inquiry officer gave finding against him and his services have been terminated. He contends that the inquiry proceedings, therefore, are vitiated. C.W.P. No. 6445 of 2009. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The factual aspect with regard to the workman being absent from duty, issuance of show cause notice and his admission with regard to charge levelled against him that he was absent from duty, is not in dispute. The only contention which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner with regard to non holding of inquiry or not proceeding with the inquiry and giving finding merely on the admission of the workman. He has further contended that his application for assistance in the inquiry proceedings was not decided. This contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that on admission of the charges levelled against the workman, no further dispute exists which would call for further inquiry into the matter, had the workman disputed the charges levelled against him. The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner could have been gone into and could have been reason good enough for proceeding with the matter further. Since the workman had admitted his charges, therefore, the question of granting him any assistance in the inquiry proceeding does not arise. That being so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while passing its award dated 06.10.2008 (Annexure-P-4). The finding as has been given by the Labour Court is fully justified and therefore, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 29, 2009. sjks. -2-