CWP No. 9697 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9697 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.05.2010 The Principal, Vaish Public School, Rohtak and another ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 18.02.1998. In compliance with the order passed by this Court on 25.03.2010, counsel for CWP No. 9697 of 2009 2 the petitioners has submitted the statement of MW-1 Smt. Archana, Vice Principal of the petitioners-School. Counsel for the petitioners-Management submits that the service of respondent No. 2-workman was terminated because of fall in the strength of the students of the School and, therefore, the Labour Court should have taken this aspect into consideration while passing an order of reinstatement. He further contends that the retrenchment compensation was offered to respondent No. 2-workman but he has refused to accept the same. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman submits that although such an assertion was made by the petitioners- Management yet no evidence was brought on record before the Labour Court in support of his contention, therefore, the Labour Court, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, had proceeded to hold that the services of respondent No. 2-workman have been terminated by violating Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioners, although was taken before the Labour Court but in the absence of the evidence in support of the said contention, the Labour Court has rejected the said contention. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on the evidence which has been led by the parties before it. It cannot be said that the findings are perverse or based on no evidence which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioners- Management that respondent No. 2-workman had completed more than CWP No. 9697 of 2009 3 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. There is no proof that the retrenchment compensation was offered to respondent No. 2-workman and he has refused the same. The finding of the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with while terminating the services of the workman, cannot be faulted with. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 11, 2010 pj