The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings by lower tribunals unless there is an error of law apparent on the record.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Sugan Lal) has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Award dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-20), passed by respondent No. 2-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal below'), whereby the reference of industrial dispute regarding termination of services of the petitioner has been answered against him and his claim statement has been rejected.

2. Briefly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his services. In the claim statement, the petitioner pleaded that he was working with respondent No. 1-M/s Bhartia Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-Management') as 'Store Attendant' since 04.02.1978 and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner claimed that in the middle of August, 2000, respondent- Management forced him to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'VRS') and on his refusal to do so, respondent-Management got annoyed with him and issued an order on 04.09.2000 regarding his transfer to Chennai. The petitioner claimed that he accepted the aforesaid order and requested respondent-Management to pay him the transfer allowance for going to Chennai and then the Store Officer of respondent-Management took back the transfer letter and forcibly threw him out while informing him that his services have been terminated. The petitioner claimed that he made a complaint in this regard to Labour Inspector and when he came to the office of respondent-Management after attending the proceedings, the Store Officer and one N.S. Chauhan told him that he would not be allowed to come to factory of respondent-Management.

The petitioner further claimed that when he raised demand notice dated 12.09.2000, on 14.09.2000, respondent-Management handed over a photocopy of his transfer letter and also agreed to pay him the advance money to go to Chennai, but later they started dilly-dallying the matter and petitioner again made a complaint to Labour Inspector on 20.09.2000 and on 27.09.2000, respondent-Management paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to him as advance amount, however, Manager (HRD) of respondent-Management told him that he would not get the service at Chennai and would have to either resign or opt for VRS. It is claimed by petitioner that he again intimated the aforesaid fact to Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ballabgarh (Faridabad), vide letter dated 29.09.2000. The petitioner claimed that he went to Chennai by train on 04.10.2000 and reported for duty at the office of respondent- Management on 07.10.2000, but the office was closed on that day due to some holiday and thereafter, on 09.10.2000, the Manger of Chennai office told him that he must opt for VRS otherwise he would not be allowed to work at all and there was no vacancy for him in the office. Petitioner next claimed that he telegraphically informed respondent-Management at Faridabad regarding the aforesaid matter and then he returned to Faridabad. The petitioner maintained that 2-3 employees at Chennai office of respondent- Management had also been forced to opt for VRS. With the aforesaid pleas, the petitioner claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits.

3. On the other hand, the aforesaid claim of petitioner was contested by respondent-Management on the ground that petitioner had reported for duty at Chennai office on 07.10.2000 and he also remained present in the office on 09.10.2000, but thereafter he did not attend the office there and started absenting himself from duty with effect from 10.10.2000 and, therefore, he himself left the job at Chennai and respondent- Management had not terminated his services. It was submitted that in fact three employees at Chennai office had retired from service under VRS and, therefore, the petitioner had been transferred to Ch