JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.:- In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with lump-sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of back wages. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the records. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 2-workman submitted his resignation on 07.01.2002, which was accepted on the same day by the competent authority and, therefore, on acceptance of the resignation, the workman could not have withdrawn the same. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the resignation was not voluntary but was forced on the workman by the Management and, therefore, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court, is not correct and deserves to be set aside. He further contends that the workman has concealed the true facts from the Court and has concocted a false story. The workman is gainfully employed and is not interested in the job with the Management. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. 4. A perusal of the award would show that the resignation was submitted by the workman on 07.01.2002, copy whereof is exhibited as M-2. The assertion of the workman is that the resignation was obtained through force and under undue influence and coercion . It has come on record that the services could be dispensed with by the Management by giving one month’s notice or in case, the workman wanted to leave the job, he was also required to give one month’s notice or in lieu thereof, he was required to deposit one month’s pay. He was further required to submit his identity card and was to obtain a clearance certificate. These requirements i.e. with regard to submission of the original identity card, pay in lieu of the notice period, was not submitted by the workman to the Management. Even the Clearance Certificate was not obtained by the workman, nor was it granted by the Management. These requirements i.e. with regard to submission of the original identity card, pay in lieu of the notice period, was not submitted by the workman to the Management. Even the Clearance Certificate was not obtained by the workman, nor was it granted by the Management. It has come on record that the original identity card, which was valid up to December, 2002, was with the workman as he had produced the same as Ex. W-3 before the Labour Court. No pay in lieu of the notice period was got deposited from the workman nor was the same waived by the Management while accepting the resignation nor has this been asserted by the Management. The Management has itself produced the Clearance Certificate, which is in original, but that does not bear the signatures of the workman. The workman has also asserted and has proved that he had visited the office of the petitioner-Management on 08.01.2002 and made a request to the Management Personnel to return his resignation and allow him to join his duties. He also met the Executive Director on 11.01.2002 along with his brother and narrated the whole incident. The workman has produced on record the letter written by him on 11.01.2002 through registered A.D., wherein he had stated that the resignation letter dated 07.01.2002 be treated as cancelled. All this go to show that the resignation of the workman was not voluntary. 5. Demand notice dated 05.02.2002 was given by the workman (Annexure P-2). To frustrate the claim of the workman, an FIR was got registered against the workman, wherein a theft case was registered against him, copy where of has been placed on record as Ex. M-5. This FIR was got registered on 08.06.2003. After the trial, the workman was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh vide his judgment dated 27.04.2006, Ex. W3. All this go to show that the Management has terminated the services of the workman not in accordance with law and in fact, had put the pressure on the workman to deprive him of the benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law as the same is based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them. 6. The award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law as the same is based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them. No fault or illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in coming to the conclusion and deciding the reference in favour of the workman. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. -------------------