Civil Writ Petition No. 20043 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20043 of 2009 Date of decision: 30th July, 2010 Nand Lal ...petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and anr. ...Respondent 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. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Mali on 17.06.1988 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day. As per the petitioner, he was later on assigned the work of Helper in the School Library but his services were abruptly terminated on 19.10.2004. The petitioner says that this was done in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The stand of the respondent-Management is that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned when some embezzlement was detected on his part. To explain his resignation, the petitioner would state that the management has forcibly obtained the signatures of the petitioner on documents and forced him to write and to sign on Civil Writ Petition No. 20043 of 2009 2 paper, which was converted into the resignation. The petitioner had sought reference of this dispute by the labour Court. On the basis of evidence and pleadings, reference has been declined. The factual issue that whether the petitioner was forced to resign has been considered on the basis of evidence and material by the labour Court. The finding by the Labour Court is that it was not a case of forcible resignation. The reason for which the petitioner says that he was forced to resign was that there was an allegation of embezzlement against him and he was threatened that in case he did not resign, he would be harassed and handed over to police for investigation. This, is stated by the petitioner to be a reason for which he signed. The issues raised by the labour Court have been considered in detail in the judgment. Counsel for the petitioner would repeat the same assertion before me that the petitioner is forced to resign in this case. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the facts cannot be re-appreciated. Once the parties got opportunity to prove the facts and the Court has come to a particular finding, the same would not be open to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This court appropriately would not re-appreciate the facts. There is no infirmity pointed out, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE