IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20043 of 2010 Basant Mehto Vs. Indian Harness Industries, Chandigarh and another Present: Mr.S.K.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner served a demand notice on the respondent-Management pleading that he had been wrongly terminated. Ultimately, the reference of the dispute was prayed, which has been adjudicated by the Labour Court. In response to the demand notice, the Management took up the plea that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned his service. On the basis of evidence led by the respective parties, the Labour Court found that the petitioner had submitted a voluntary resignation letter (Ex.M1). Finding of fact is also recorded that the workman has made an unsuccessful attempt to succeed in this case by denying the fact that he had voluntarily resigned from his job. As observed by the Labour Court, the workman could not explain as to how he was made to sign a stamped cash receipt of ` 15,589/- (Ex.M2). He did not deny his signatures or handwriting on resignation Ex.M1. Accordingly, his affidavit denying this fact was held not believable. The documentary evidence was preferred over the oral account given by the petitioner- workman. Counsel for the petitioner would wish to make reference to the cross-examination and would also make submission that evidence has not been rightly appreciated by the Labour Court. I am afraid, the writ court would not be in a position to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere in the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court. That would be beyond the purview and jurisdiction of the court. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. November 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE