IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.995 of 1994 Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board ...PETITIONER Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL .. Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 27.10.1993 passed by the Labour Court, whereby termination of the services of the respondent-workman were held to be illegal and unjustified and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned award. In this case, the respondent-workman was working as Pump Operator w.e.f. 9.2.1988. On 13.7.1989 his services were terminated without any notice and payment of compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). On the dispute raised by the respondent-workman, the State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner- C.W.P. No.995 of 1994 -2- management did not lead any evidence despite several opportunities granted to it in order to justify its action. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the workman, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-management was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent-workman without giving him any notice and paying the retrenchment compensation as envisaged under Section 25F of the Act. During the course of hearing, learned counsel could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said order. Before the Labour Court, though the petitioner-management took the stand that the workman himself had left the job on 15.7.1989 and even he was asked to resume his duties, but it failed to establish the said plea by leading evidence. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. No merits. Dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE