IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5807 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 20.04.2009 Lingaya's Institute of Management & Technology ....Petitioner(s) vs. Gajraj and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Class-I, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge sheet was issued to the workman and thereafter an enquiry was also held against him. He submits that on the basis of the enquiry holding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him, his services were terminated. He contends that since the workman had misbehaved with the staff of the Institute as well as the members of the Management, the order of punishment of termination from service was passed by the Management. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award. A perusal of the award would show that the Management has miserably failed to prove either the allegations against the workman or that C.W.P.No.5807 of 2009 -2- a departmental enquiry was indeed held against the workman where the workman was associated with. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman refused to receive the charge sheet issued to him. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner again cannot be accepted as there is no evidence to this effect. There being no evidence on the record, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the charges having not been proved or that the enquiry was in consonance with the principles of natural justice, cannot be faulted with. There being no illegality which would persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Labour Court, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. April 20, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No