IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2970 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.08.2010 Shambhu Nath Verma .....Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed to the post of G/Helper on 01.04.1994. Subsequently, he was assigned the duties of Spray Operator. The petitioner's services were terminated on 01.01.1999 without assigning any reason. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute by serving a demand notice on 27.01.1999 and this dispute was referred to labour Court, which has now been decided on 30.07.2010. The reference has been dismissed. The petitioner, accordingly, has challenged the said order passed by the labour Court through the present writ petition. The sole submission made before me is that the petitioner was forced to sign certain papers on the date of termination, which has been taken to be a resignation and the petitioner is eased out of service. The labour Court has dealt with the evidence led by the petitioner and found that during cross Civil Writ Petition No. 2970 of 2010 -2- examination, the petitioner admitted that his signatures were taken forcibly on these documents but he claimed that his signatures were taken at the time of appointment or at the time of termination. In his affidavit, taken on record and in examination-in-chief, the version was that the petitioner was blamed for breaking the mouth of the machine and was called in the office and started beating him. At that time, his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers without making any payment. The counsel, accordingly, contends that the finding by the labour Court that the petitioner's signatures could not have been forcibly obtained based on his cross examination can be termed as perverse and not enough to decline the claim of the petitioner. It would basically depend upon the appreciation of evidence or on the version given by the petitioner in examination-in-chief which was subjected to cross examination. The Labour Court appreciated the same and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was unable to establish that he was made to forcibly resign. Rather finding is that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned and had accepted his full and final settlement. While exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go to re-appreciate the evidence to come to any different finding or conclusion. No case for interference thus is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE