CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15568 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 31, 2010 Om Parkash Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Premier Instruments Control Limited, Gurgaon and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as Apprentice with the respondent-management. As per the petitioner, apprenticeship period was upto 31.12.1995. The petitioner would, thus, claim that subsequent to this date, he was in the service of the respondent and was terminated on 23.10.1996. The petitioner served a demand notice and the dispute was referred to Labour Court. The Labour CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15568 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Court has rejected the reference on 3.9.2009. The petitioner has, thus, filed this petition to impugn the said award. Submission is that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence to hold that the apprenticeship of the petitioner was till 31.12.1997. The counsel would urge that letter in this regard, as produced by the respondent-management, was forged one and to explain this contradiction, the petitioner-workman was questioned that he had changed the first page of appointment letter, a fact which he denied. In a way, the challenge to the award is on the basis of appreciation of the evidence, as can be made out from the line of submissions made. The plea that the finding is perverse on the basis of misreading of evidence would not change the nature of challenge as is being made, which would only in fact mean that the petitioner is asking for re-appreciation of the evidence. This would not be within the scope of writ jurisdiction. The evidence was considered and appreciated by the Labour Court and the version of the petitioner was not considered worthy of reliance. The reference to the claim statement, which is on record, would show that the petitioner never made a mention in his statement that he was initially appointed as Apprentice. The evidence given by the petitioner was also contradictory wherein he admitted that he was appointed as Apprentice, which he changed by saying that his appointment was permanent in nature. The petitioner again stated that as per his appointment, he was an Apprentice. The Labour Court, thus, was justified in not relying upon his version and has held that his apprenticeship period was to come to an end on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15568 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: 31.12.1997. There are no good grounds to interfere in the impugned award in the background as noticed above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 31, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE