Writ Petition No. 1872 of 2006 · Uttarakhand High Court

hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the workman/respondent is entitled for suspension allowance of Rs.2812.00 for the period 2.3.1995 to

19.3.1995 plus salary of Rs.4314.00 for the period

23.6.1995 to 21.8.1995. On the issue of absence of the workman/respondent from 23.6.1995 to 21.8.1995, the learned Tribunal held that the employer should not have stopped the workman to enter into the premises due to which the workman had to abstain from work. Thereafter, when the recovery was issued against the petitioner, review application was filed, which was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This fact is not disputed that the suspension allowance was not paid to the workman/respondent. However, medical certificate was disputed by employer and he was asked to verify the same by the Chief Medical Officer. Learned Tribunal has held that it was the fault of the employer who had not allowed the respondent to enter into the premises of the Mill for work and therefore the respondent/workman is entitled for wage for that period also. The finding given by the learned Tribunal is finding of fact and is based on appraisal of 4 evidence. It is well settled that the Court, in writ jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appeal. In view of the discussion made forgoing paragraphs, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Interim order dated 21.12.2006 is vacated. Rajni (B.S.Verma,J.) 11.12.2012