Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing respondent No. 1 and Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

The facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman concerned on account of his termination from the service w.e.f. February 10, 1983.

The Conciliation proceeding having failed, the matter of dispute was referred to Labour Court, Agra wherein it was registered as 100/84. The reference order is as under:

Vernacular matter omitted.

2. According to the workman, he was working as Gate Keeper in the, respondent-cinema w.e.f. March 5, 1979 and his services were dispensed with 1983 without any reasonable cause and in violation of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which are mandatory in nature.

The case of the employer was that it was admitted that the workman was appointed as Gate-Keeper and he had allowed some persons without ticket inside the picture hall from time to time for which he has been issued warning several limes.

On March 9, 1983 the employer on inspection found that he had again allowed certain persons inside the picture hall during the show and inspite of repeated (sic) reminders neither he appeared before the employer nor gave any explanation. When a compromise was being entered between the employer and Cinema Worker Union, it was requested by the Union to post the workman some other place but the services of the workman may not be terminated. Thereafter, employer in the circumstances directed the workman to work as supervisor of sweepers, whose duty was to clean but the workman did not accept the work and did not join.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the cross-examination of the employer wherein it has been stated that:

Vernacular-matter omitted.

The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record except the statement, as such the award may be quashed for the reason that it cannot be said that there is no evidence before the Labour Court to come to the conclusion that employer did not; ask him to supervise the duties of sweepers instead of Gate-Keeper.

4. The Labour Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has held that only duty of workman was changed and his services have not been terminated by the employer.

5. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated December 23, 1995 but no interim order was granted in the case.

After considering the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner services were, not terminated by the employer. I do not find any reason for disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court, which has not shown to be perverse or illegal.

For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.