JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Siddharth, Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that services of workman-the petitioner, who was employed as Wireman in the establishment of respondent No. 2, were terminated on the ground that he instigated other workmen, abused and raised slogans etc. disturbing peace of the industrial establishment, as a result of which workmen in the establishment abstained, did not report for duty and struck the work. 3. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the State Government which was referred for adjudication to labour Court, Dehradun and later on transferred to labour Court, Meerut where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 17 of 1992. The workman and employer filed their documentary as well as oral evidence. Two additional issues were framed by the labour Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, as follows : ÞD;k oknh Jfed ds fo:) dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap ÁkÑfrd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj Qs;j vkSj tLV 4. Vide order dated 8.7.1996 the labour Court decided additional issue No. 1 against the workman petitioner holding that domestic enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 5. Thereafter the workman filed a review petition praying that said order be reviewed. His review application was also rejected by the labour Court by order dated 31.8.1998 as not maintainable on the ground that labour Court has no power to review. 6. As regards additional issue No. 2. it was considered alongwith the award dated 16.5.2007 alognwith main reference order. The labour Court by the impugned award dated 16.5.2007 decided the reference as well as additional issue No. 2 also against the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition. 7. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and against material evidence on record. The labour Court by the impugned award dated 16.5.2007 decided the reference as well as additional issue No. 2 also against the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition. 7. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and against material evidence on record. The workman has placed this argument before the labour Court in extenso as follows : ÞJfed ds Áfrfuf/k us vius rdZ esa bl ckr ij Hkh cgqr cy fn;k gS fd ÁnkZ bZ0 9 dks tkap vf/kdkjh us viuh fjiksVZ dk vk/kkj crk;k gS vkSj mUgksaus ;g dgk fd gkftjh jftLVj ls bl ckn dh iqf"V dj yh x;h FkhA ÁnkZ bZ0 9 esa fn;s x;s lHkh Jfed gkftj jftLVj esa Hkh ?kVuk dh frfFk dks vuqifLFkr ekdZ fd;s x;s gSaA tc fd okLro esa gkftjh jftLVj tks i=koyh ds lkFk nkf[ky gSA 19-9-1987 dks vijkUg [kkus dh M~;wVh ds okn fdlh Hkh Jfed dks vuqifLFkr ekdZ ugha fd;k x;k gSAÞ 8. It is urged that from the above it was evident that workman was present in the establishment. 9. From perusal of the award, it appears that case of the workman was that reporting time for duty in the establishment is 8 A.M. whereas the incident of instigating other workmen, abusing and raising slogans etc. disturbing peace of the industrial establishment is of 7.45 A.M. From the above stand of the workman, it is amply clear that workmen of the establishment had in fact not reported for duty, had struck work and had gone on strike before the reporting time and in fact had struck the work from 8 A.M. i.e. start of the shift. The labour Court has also considered the fact that concerned workman claimed before the Court that he was on duty but he was not marked his attendance on the attendance sheet. 10. The contention of the Counsel for petitioner-workman that attendance of the workman was not marked by the employer appears to be fallacious and incorrect. It is the workman who marks his attendance on the attendance register and if he has not marked his attendance, it is pointer that workman was not present on duty. 10. The contention of the Counsel for petitioner-workman that attendance of the workman was not marked by the employer appears to be fallacious and incorrect. It is the workman who marks his attendance on the attendance register and if he has not marked his attendance, it is pointer that workman was not present on duty. The workman has not given any evidence in support of his case before the enquiry officer and had also not given any objection that he is not being permitted to give evidence in support of his case before the enquiry officer. Therefore, objection of the workman that he was not given opportunity to give evidence is afterthought and has rightly been found by the labour Court which has noted the fact that workman had been given opportunity of hearing and to argue his case before the enquiry officer but nowhere he has raised aforesaid objection of denial of opportunity. 11. As regards other points raised by the Counsel for petitioner that past record of the workman was also seen but nothing was found which can be said to be perverse, it appears that past record of the workman was seen in the enquiry in order to see if there are any mitigating circumstances. But according to Counsel for the petitioner, nothing was found and his services have been terminated upon the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the question of looking into past record dos not remain of much importance. 12. In any case the workman had an opportunity before the labour Court to assail the enquiry and also establish his case that he was on duty and punishment meted out to him is disproportionate to the charges. However, he miserably failed to prove his case before the labour Court whereas the employer has justified their action and has found that charges against the petitioner have been found proved. 13. It may also be noted here that services of the workman had been terminated on 13.1.1988 and he would have attained the age of superannuation in 1997. The labour Court has found that charges of serious misconduct against the workman have been found proved. 14. No other point has been argued. 15. 13. It may also be noted here that services of the workman had been terminated on 13.1.1988 and he would have attained the age of superannuation in 1997. The labour Court has found that charges of serious misconduct against the workman have been found proved. 14. No other point has been argued. 15. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere into findings of fact recorded by the labour Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence in which no illegality or infirmity could be shown by the Counsel for petitioner. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————