IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 330 of 2001 (M/S) OLD NO. W.P. NO. 21308 OF 1996 Sandeep Kumar Jain ……... Petitioner Versus Sri Jain Dharamshala and another ….….. Respondents …….. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C.J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman has challenged the Award dated 26.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court, U.P. at Dehradun in Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 1991. Reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government was as under: “Whether the termination of the services of Sandeep Jain, Workman vide order dated 11.06.1990 was improper and illegal and if so, to what relief is he entitled?” The Management’s case was that the petitioner absented himself from duty w.e.f. 02.06.1990 and he remained in unauthorized absence till 10.06.1990. It is because of this unauthorized absence that his services were terminated on 11.06.1990. It is undisputed case of the petitioner before this Court as well as the Labour Court that indeed he was absent from duty between 02.06.1990 to 10.06.1990 and this absence he attributes to his illness. The Labour Court in the course of the Award has clearly returned the finding that the petitioner – workman could not produce any proof documentary or otherwise about his illness. On the other hand, the respondent Management produced enough evidence to establish and prove that the petitioner-workman had remained absent unauthorisedly and he was sent communication on a few occasions to report for duty. The evidence was produced through the statement of reliable witness, who deposed that indeed communications were sent to the petitioner to come back and join duties, yet he did not do so. Actually, at one stage, as per the case, the petitioner had snatched the papers as well as refused to sign on the peon-book. In the totality of circumstances, I find that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the reference. No interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed but without any other for the costs. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 19.03.2009 A