WP(C) No.8001/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) NO. 8001/2009 Date of Decision: 08.04.2009 % M/S BENTEX ELECTRONICS …. Petitioner Through Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocate Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …. Respondents Through Nemo. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.1.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts in ID No.8/06/96 titled Shri Mahesh Chander Vs. M/s Bentex Electronics. 2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has answered the reference that the services of Sh.Mahesh Chander were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner /Management w.e.f. 25.10.1995 and it did not accept the case put forward by the petitioner/Management that the respondent/workman had of his own resigned from the services of the petitioner/Management. With regard to the question of reinstatement since the respondent was in judicial WP(C) No.8001/2009 Page 2 of 3 custody in case FIR No.507/2006 under Section 302/34 IPC PS Uttam Nagar since 10.6.2006 therefore, instead of ordering the reinstatement, the learned Labour Court had granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent /workman in lieu of reinstatement and payment of back wages and other consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, has challenged the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent /workman has not stated in his examination in chief as to who was the person who had taken his signature forcibly on the resignation letter nor has he disclosed as to whether the documents which were signed by him were blank or filled up. Therefore, it was contended that the learned Labour Court has grossly erred in disbelieving the stand of the petitioner/Management that the respondent/workman had not voluntarily resigned. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire award. The argument which is sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in fact pertaining to re-appreciation of evidence which has been adduced by the respective sides before the learned Labour Court below. The learned Labour Court has gone through the entire evidence and disbelieved the version of the petitioner /Management that the respondent/workman had tendered his resignation and accepted the plea of the respondent /workman that his services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated. One of the important factors which has been WP(C) No.8001/2009 Page 3 of 3 taken into consideration in arriving at this finding by the learned Labour Court is the factum of grant of retrenchment compensation by the petitioner /Management to the respondent /workman. If the respondent /workman had actually tendered resignation and left the services, it is totally unbelievable that the petitioner would have paid retrenchment compensation to the respondent /workman. 5. Be that as it may, since this Court is exercising the power of judicial review, it cannot sit as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at a finding of fact separately and even if it happens to be different than the one which has been arrived by the learned Labour Court below and then substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of principles of natural justice, rule, regulation or perversity in the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. APRIL 08, 2009 RN