IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.580 of 1991 Date of Decision: 02.12.2010 Nihal Singh ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ****** RANJAN GOGOI, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is against the order dated 15.05.1990 (Annexure P-2) by which an alleged industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-employer has been refused to be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The rejection of the petitioner's representation against the order dated 15.05.1990 by an order dated 21.08.1990 (Annexure P-4), is also an incidental aspect of the challenge made in the writ petition. The claim of the petitioner was that he had rendered service on daily wage for more than 240 days from January to December, 1989 and, therefore, his termination with effect from 01.01.1990, without issuing any notice and without payment of retrenchment Civil Writ Petition No.581 of 1991 -2- compensation, is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The retention of juniors in service while terminating the petitioner had also been pleaded so as to attract violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. The respondents have filed a reply wherein it is stated that the petitioner had rendered service on daily wage for 187 days in the year 1989. But he had left his job on his own volition. The details of the number of days when the petitioner was employed in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 have been stated in a separate schedule enclosed as Annexure-1 to the reply of the respondents. The impugned order dated 15.05.1990 (Annexure P-2) clearly recites that the petitioner had completed 187 days of employment during the year 1989 and that the petitioner left service on his own volition. The aforesaid findings recorded in the impugned order dated 15.05.1990 are stated to be the result of an enquiry into the matter. The stand taken by the respondents and the facts placed before the Court give rise to a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, there is none to represent the petitioner to point out any contrary facts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that this writ petition should be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. No costs. December 02, 2010 (RANJAN GOGOI) Gagan JUDGE