IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4378 of 2009 . Date of Decision : March 20, 2009. Harjinder Singh. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The British India Corporation Ltd., District Gurdaspur, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Vikas Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure-P-2), vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman holding therein that the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner-workman is just and in consonance with the provisions governing his service. The Labour Court has further on the basis of the evidence, come to a categoric conclusion that the services of the petitioner-workman have been terminated on well reasoned findings recorded against the petitioner-workman on the basis of the inquiry held against him. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained for the reason that no sanction from the authority before terminating the services of the petitioner- workman, has been sought nor has it been granted and therefore, his termination is not in accordance with law. On a categoric question being put to him whether this ground was ever alleged before the Labour Court in the form of demand or during the evidence or pleadings, the answer is in the negative. Perusal of the award would clearly indicate that the Labour Court had meticulously gone into the details with regard to the procedure C.W.P. No. 4378 of 2009. having been adopted by the Enquiry Officer while holding an inquiry against the petitioner-workman. The inquiry was held against the petitioner- workman in his absence for the reason that the petitioner-workman absented himself from duty and thereafter on various occasions, the petitioner- workman was informed of the inquiry proceedings pending against him through registered notices at the addresses given by him to the respondent- management. On each occasion, the A.Ds. were returned with the observation that it has been refused. Apart from that the Labour Court has, as a matter of fact, found that the address on the registered notices, issued to the petitioner-workman was the same, as has been given by the petitioner- workman in his demand notice before the authority and thereafter, in his claim petition before the Labour Court. Further, the original records have been produced which shows that proper inquiry was held against the petitioner-workman in accordance with statute governing his service. No illegality has been found by the Labour Court in the conduct of the inquiry and further plea of the petitioner-workman with regard to his absence i.e. illness, has also been found to be false on the ground that no medical certificate was produced or request to that effect was ever made by the petitioner-workman before the respondent-management. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality which would persuade this Court to take contrary view which has been taken by the Labour Court. Finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 20, 2009. sjks. -2-