IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2261 of 1986 (O/M). Date of Decision : January 30, 2009. Prem Kumar .... Petitioner. Versus. The Muradwala Coop. Agri. Service Society Limited, Muradwala, District Ferozepore, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 28.08.1985 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, vide which the reference was answered against the workman on the ground that the charges against the workman justifying his termination stood proved by the management-respondent during the proceedings before the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the workman were terminated on the ground that he proceeded on strike which was declared as illegal, and therefore, the same was punitive in nature. He C.W.P. No. 2261 of 1986. further contends that no notice, no chargesheet, and without payment of compensation the services of the workman were dispensed with. He on these basis contends violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, state that the present award cannot be sustained. He contends that the allegation of embezzlement has been levelled against the workman but the management-respondent has not been able to prove the charges which have been said to be the ground for terminating him from service. The contention put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that only photocopies of the audit report were placed on record reliance whereof has been made by the Society. He contends that on this ground, the said audit report cannot be taken into consideration as the original documents were not produced before the Labour Court. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned herein. Perusal of the same would show that the assertion which has been put forth by counsel for the petitioner is incorrect. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination on the basis of strike was not justified. The management had alleged that the workman had committed embezzlement. On an opportunity been given by the Court to prove the charges against the workman, the same were proved by the society. There is nothing on record which could substantiate the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that the original audit report was not produced by the management-respondent which was the reason for holding him guilty of embezzlement. In the light of specific finding recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the management-respondent being able to produce the evidence about the mis-conduct of the workman on the basis of embezzlement committed by the petitioner and there being -2- C.W.P. No. 2261 of 1986. no evidence to the contrary, I do not see any reason to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court. No illegality in the award has been pointed out which would persuade me to take contrary view which has been taken by the Labour Court. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 30,2009. sjks. -3-