CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11363 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 Suraj Mal .....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Rohtak 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. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the award dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The petitioner had joined the service at Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Rohtak in November 1984 on compassionate ground due to untimely death of his father, who was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11363 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: working as a Watchman. As per the allegation made, the petitioner was called by Managing Director on 10.4.1995 and was given beating and also threatened that he would be involved in a criminal case. As per the allegation, signatures of the petitioner were obtained on a blank paper, which was subsequently used to prepare his resignation letter. With effect from 28.4.1995, the petitioner was not permitted to join duties. The petitioner filed a representation, which was rejected on 31.3.1998 after nearly three years of its submission. The petitioner then raised a demand on 8.2.2000, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court and accordingly the impugned award has now been passed on 16.9.2008. The reference has been declined on appreciation of facts. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition to challenge the award. The whole issue, which needed adjudication and was considered by the Labour Court also, was whether the petitioner had submitted his resignation voluntarily or he was forced to resign. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence, found that the evidence given by the workman was self contradictory in regard to mode of taking him in the Mill by the Cane Manager and also in regard to obtaining the alleged resignation letter. WW4 Zile Singh stated that the resignation letter was written by him. His presence was very much in dispute. It is also observed by the Labour Court that the allegations made against the Managing Director are quite serious and such allegations are being made without alleging any motive on the part of the Managing Director for him to obtain resignation from the petitioner. No reasons have been advanced as to why the Managing Director would indulge in such tactics in beating the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11363 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: petitioner to obtain his resignation. These doubts, which are natural, could not be cleared and, thus, the award appears to have been passed on due appreciation of the evidence. The impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. September 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE