IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13721 of 2010 Usha Rani Chhabra Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court-III, Faridabad & another Present: Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court dated 29.4.2010, whereby the claim of the petitioner in regard to termination of her services, referred to Labour Court, has been dismissed. The petitioner has alleged that verbal termination order was made, which, as per the counsel is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. In response, the Management came out with a plea that the petitioner had abandoned the job by absenting and as such it is not a case of termination. Counsel for the petitioner may be right in saying that if the petitioner was to be terminated for absence, it could have been done only after holding a domestic enquiry on the basis of charge framed and proved. This would have been a correct position but for the different facts which are clearly noticed from the evidence on record. The Labour Court has made reference to the proceedings held before the Conciliation Officer, where offer was made to the petitioner for joining the post, but she had allegedly declined the same. The submission that this evidence is not substantiated in any manner and that it could not have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, being not admissible evidence. As per the counsel, the proceedings before Conciliation Officer were required to be ignored. Even if that be so, the fact that offer was made to the petitioner to join service made before the Labour Court, cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.13721 of 2010 : 2 : ignored. If the petitioner's services were terminated, then there was no reason for the Management to make offer to the petitioner to join service. She refused to accept the said offer and this reason weighed with the Labour Court to come to the conclusion that she had abandoned the job and it is not a case of termination. The facts as appreciated by the Labour Court would not suffer from any such cause which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 04, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE