WP(C) No. 2071/2008 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP (C) No. 2071/2008 % Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2009 Shri Puran Singh ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv. versus The Management of M/s Sawhney Gas Agency .... Respondents Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral) * By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Award whereby reference was answered against the petitioner while against the other workmen compensation amount of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement backwages etc. WP(C) No. 2071/2008 Page 2 of 3 Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before the Labour Court it was duly proved that services of the petitioner along with other workmen were illegally terminated without paying any retrenchment benefits. Counsel further submits that it was also proved on record that the petitioner along with other workmen remained unemployed from the date of their retrenchment and they were not able to find any gainful employment despite their best efforts. Counsel also submits that the learned Labour Court unnecessarily gave importance to the denial of the petitioner of his signatures on the statement of claim as well as on his affidavit in his cross-examination. The petitioner infact could not understand the questions during his cross-examination, the counsel contends. The counsel for the petitioner thus urges that in such circumstances the Court should have questioned the petitioner so as to elicit truth from the petitioner instead of attaching importance to his denial of his signatures on the claim petition as well in his affidavit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. WP(C) No. 2071/2008 Page 3 of 3 The present petitioner out rightly denied his signatures on the claim petition as well as on his affidavit. During the cross- examination, the petitioner also did not offer any explanation with regard to the said denials nor any permission was sought by him for his re-examination. Once the petitioner himself had denied his signatures on the statement of claim as well as on the affidavit filed by him to adduce his evidence nothing contrary to the same could be held by the Labour Court. There was no need to put Court questions to the petitioner when there was no ambiguity in the approach of the petitioner in outrightly denying his signatures on the statement of claim as well as on his affidavit. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award. The present petition is devoid of any merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed. April 17, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J. rkr