IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5615 of 2010. Date of decision: 22.9.2010. Municipal Corporation, Shimla & anr. …..Petitioners. Vs. H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) The award dated 3.6.2010 passed by Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court in Reference No. 6 of 2009 has been assailed in the present writ petition. The appropriate government sent the reference for adjudication on the point whether the termination of services of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 21.11.2005 is without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) and consequences thereof. The Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of respondent No. 2 and ordered his reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages from the date of his termination w.e.f. 21.11.2005. 2. The case of respondent No. 2 who is deaf and dumb is that he was engaged as Beldar on daily wages by the petitioners on 21.4.1997, he worked continuously till 21.11.2005 and he had …2… completed 240 days in each calendar year. The further case of respondent No. 2 is that his services were terminated without complying Section 25F of the Act. The claim of respondent No. 2 was contested by the petitioners on the ground of maintainability for want of notice under Section 392 of H.P. Municipal Corporation Act. It has been denied that respondent No. 2 had worked continuously till 21.11.2005. It has also been denied that services of respondent No. 2 were terminated, rather defence put up is that respondent No. 2 had left the job on 21.11.2005 and he remained absent for about 14 months. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that vide Ex. RB respondent No. 2 had approached for his reengagement, but he was not reengaged. The Tribunal on the basis of muster-roll Ex. PR-1 has held that respondent No. 2 on the date of his termination had completed more than 240 days. There is no convincing evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 2 had abandoned his job. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that in absence of Section 25F of the Act, the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.11.2005 is illegal and unjustified. The plea of petitioners that claim of respondent No. 2 is bad for want of notice under Section 392 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act was also rejected by the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of respondent No. 2 on the basis of evidence. In writ jurisdiction, re- appreciation of evidence is not possible. This court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction. There is no perversity in the impugned award. It is not a case of no evidence nor it is the case of the petitioners that view taken by the Tribunal does not emerge from the material on …3… record. The main contention taken by the petitioners that it is a case of voluntary abandonment cannot be appreciated in the factual matrix of the case of a deaf and dumb workman having worked admittedly for seven years and having raised a dispute without any inordinate delay, on being disengaged. The Tribunal has only ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 25.11.2005 with continuity of service and seniority without back wages. Thus there is no merit in the petition, hence the same is dismissed. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice. September 22, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.