CWP-15805-2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 CWP-15805-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision :23.07.2025 Puneet Goel ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Parmod Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, challenge is to the award dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh by which, the claim of the petitioner that the resignation he had tendered, which resignation was accepted by the authorities concerned, was not voluntarily given, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resignation which was tendered by the petitioner was given under coercion and the same cannot be treated as valid/voluntary resignation and therefore, the acceptance of the same by the authorities concerned is incorrect and the said aspect has not been appreciated by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. AARTI SHARMA 2025.07.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15805-2016 (O&M) -2- 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 4. Once, it is a conceded fact that the resignation was tendered by petitioner, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to prove that the same was not given voluntarily and was rather given under coercion. As per the findings recorded by the Labour Court, no such evidence has been brought on record which could show that the petitioner was forced to submit his resignation. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with by this Court. 4. Further, the findings of the Labour Court can only be interfered with in case, the same are perverse to the evidence or facts brought on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to prove that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse either to the evidence or facts brought on record. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances recorded hereinbefore, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. July 23, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.07.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document