IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4279 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 19, 2009. Rajesh Kumar. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, wherein the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman holding therein that since the services of the petitioner- workman has yet not been terminated by the respondents-management, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the findings with regard to the petitioner-workman having tried to overreach the Court, is not sustainable in the light of the fact that the claim statement which the petitioner-workman had preferred and the demand notice also refers to the inquiry proceedings going against him. He, therefore, contends that the observations as made by the Labour Court are not, sustainable, however, he contends that he has not been allowed to join duty by the respondents. Perusal of the award clearly indicates that on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and the documents produced by the respondent- C.W.P. No. 4279 of 2009. management in particular, it is proved that the inquiry proceedings are still pending against the petitioner-workman. The services of the petitioner- workman have not yet been terminated. In this view of the matter, it is open to the petitioner-workman to join his duty with the respondent-management. There is nothing in the award which would debar the petitioner-workman in approaching the respondent-management to join duty. Findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are in consonance with the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and no illegality, therefore, can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure-P-1), which would call for interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner-workman at this stage submits that the petitioner-workman wishes to join his services with the respondent- management. No permission from this Court is required on such relief. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 19, 2009. sjks. -2-