Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. On the last date when the instant writ petition came up for hearing, none had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 Even today none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is in these circumstances that this case is being taken up today for final hearing, in the absence of any representation on behalf of respondent No. 2, 2. It is the case of the petitioner workman, that he was inducted into the service of the respondent No. 2 as a workman in September 1967, whereafter he continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly, on monthly wages of Rs. 340/- till his services were eventually terminated, arbitrarily and unilaterally, by the respondents management on May 01, 1982. Dissatisfied with the action of the respondent-management in terminating his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by issuing a notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act). On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate government referred the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court), under Section 10(i)(c) of the 1947 Act, on May 17, 1983. After affording an opportunity to the rival parties to lead evidence, the Labour Court answered the reference of the dispute raised by the petitioner workman, through an award dated May 21, 1985. It would be pertinent to mention, that therein the aforesaid award the claim of the petitioner was not accepted. It is, therefore, that the award of the Labour Court dated May 21, 1985 has been impugned by the petitioner-workman through the instant writ petition, 3. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court dated May 21,1985 reveals that the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner workman had abandoned his duties whereas the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is, that the services of the petitioner were actually terminated, and that, the petitioner workman had never abandoned his duties. In view of the aforesaid submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only issue that needs to be adjudicated upon is, whether the determination of the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner workman had abandoned his duties on April 26, 1982 (as is the case set up by the respondent management) is justified. In view of the aforesaid submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only issue that needs to be adjudicated upon is, whether the determination of the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner workman had abandoned his duties on April 26, 1982 (as is the case set up by the respondent management) is justified. 4. In order to examine the veracity of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner one needs only to refer to the report submitted by. the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer-III, Ludhiana, on the failure of conciliation proceedings conducted by him. The aforesaid report has been extracted in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 The same is reproduced hereunder:- "The representative of the management during the course of conciliation told that workman is 72 years old and is not fit to work. They are still prepared to take him back on compassionate grounds. But payment of back wages would be made only after workman has worked for one month. In this regard whatever the decision of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer be would be binding, but the workman did not agree to it. The workman only kept on pressing for the balance dues during the course of conciliation. His attitude, was not conciliatory. Management was ready to pay gratuity etc. and every kind of compensation according to record, but the workman said that he would not take anything less than Rs. 60,000/-. The workman could not make any justification about this payment. This amount is much more than what is actually due to workman. The attitude of workman is not conciliatory. During the course of conciliation the age of workman is stated to be 72 years. From appearance also the workman appears to be of old age and not fit to work. I apprised the workman that whatever is due in his favour from the Management he can claim under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Due to adamant attitude of the workman no decision could be arrived at. Because of the facts that workman is aged about 72 years, his refusal to join work unless compensation is paid and his disagreement on every suggestion, I do not think this dispute fit to be referred for adjudication. This demand may be rejected". 5. Due to adamant attitude of the workman no decision could be arrived at. Because of the facts that workman is aged about 72 years, his refusal to join work unless compensation is paid and his disagreement on every suggestion, I do not think this dispute fit to be referred for adjudication. This demand may be rejected". 5. It is the aforesaid report which primarily weighed with the Labour Court in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner workman had in fact abandoned his duties. In so far as reliance on the report of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer is concerned, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the aforesaid report was never placed before the Labour Court. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assertions of facts recorded in the report of the Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, are factually incorrect. 6. It is not possible for this Court to accept either of the aforesaid contentions, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no express denial in the pleadings before this Court, that the report of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer was not available on the record of the Labour Court, and secondly, it is not denied either expressly or impliedly, that an offer was made by the respondents management to the petitioner workman during the course of the conciliation proceedings, to resume his duties, with a further undertaking that in case he did so he would be paid back wages subject to the condition that he continued to discharge his duties for a period of one month. For rebuttal of the assertions made in the report of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner workman invited the attention of the Court to the pleadings recorded in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, which are being reproduced hereunder:- "That as the Conciliation Officer was unnecessarily putting pressure on the workman and he never made statement that he demanded Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, the workman had made a number of complaints to the State Government against the behavior of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, for which he had been facing an inquiry. Therefore, no reliance can be placed without there being any documentary proof to the effect that the workman demanded Rs. 60,000/- and thereafter Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and that he was not interested in service. Therefore, no reliance can be placed without there being any documentary proof to the effect that the workman demanded Rs. 60,000/- and thereafter Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and that he was not interested in service. With respect, the petitioner submits that he was very much interested in service and is still interested in service, therefore, the finding on issues 2, 3 and 4 is not based on any material before the learned Labour Court". The petitioner workman neither denied the existence of the report of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, nor the fact that an offer was made by the respondent-management, that the petitioner-workman would be reinstated into service, and that he would be paid back wages in case he discharged his duties for a period of one month after his reinstatement. 7 In view of the above, keeping in mind that the workman raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the 1947 Act, soon after the alleged termination of his services on May 01, 1982, and an offer was made to him by the respondents management to resume his duties, with a further undertaking that he would be paid back wages subject to the condition that he continued to discharge his duties for a continuous period of one month which he did not accept, leads to unassailable inference that the petitioner workman was not desirous to work with the respondents management. Thus viewed the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner workman has abandoned his duties is fully substantiated. For the reasons recorded above, 1 find not merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.