IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16801 of 2000 Date of decision: 09.09.2009 Yoginder Singh ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of a reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had been illegally terminated on 11.12.1995 without compliance of the procedure set out under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The defence of the management was that it was not a case of illegal termination but a case of wilful absence by the workman. The management put before Court evidence through Ex.M-1, M-2 and M-3, which were letters written on 16.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 02.04.1996, all of which were to the effect that the workman had been absent from duty from 11.12.1995 and that he should immediately report for duty. These communications had been sent by registered post to the address at Rohna, which was admitted by the workman in evidence before the Labour Court, was correct. The Civil Writ Petition No.16801 of 2000 - 2 - registration receipts had also been filed in Court. Proceedings had been subsequently taken by the management to strike his name off the rolls and communicated to the workman under Ex.M-11. This notice had also been sent by registered post not only to the petitioner but also to the Labour Commissioner at Gurgaon and the Labour Commissioner at Panipat. 2. The petitioner wanted to contend before the Labour Court that after 11.12.1995 also and after the notices, he went to join the duty, but he was not permitted to join the respondent-Company. There was no such reference in the claim statement filed before the Labour Court that he offered his services, but they were repulsed by the management and he had not been allowed to join. 3. The Labour Court, under the circumstances, found that the decision of the management to terminate the services had been done after sufficient notices and it was not a case of termination on 11.12.1995 as contended by him but on the other hand, it was a case of wilful absence from duty. Even the fact that the workman had issued a demand notice on 01.03.1996 did not make a difference, for, it was in evidence that even subsequently when there had been specific offers, he had not joined. Only after finding that the workman had remained absent for sufficiently long time, the management had decided to terminate his services. The learned counsel for the workman vehemently contends that there was no necessity for the workman to approach the Labour Commissioner if only he had been offered the job or if he was permitted to resume the duty. The further contention was the alleged offer of the Civil Writ Petition No.16801 of 2000 - 3 - management to resume duty had been made only to the Labour Commissioner, Panipat, when the proceedings had been going on only before the Conciliation Officer at Gurgaon on various dates 18.03.1996, 11.04.1996 and 24.04.1996. According to him, the Conciliation Officer at Gurgaon had sent failure report only when he found that there had been no response from the management. The attempt by him was, therefore, to show that the management had never turned up before the Conciliation Officer to concede to the petitioner's entitlement to continue in duty. 4. The failure report of the Conciliation Officer by itself does not prove that the management had not been willing to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty. The communications, which had been sent through registered letters, have not been expressly denied by the petitioner as not having been received by him. The Labour Court had considered the fact that the ultimate decision to terminate the services came through Ex.M-11 when after recording the fact that the workman had not reported for duty in spite of sufficient notices, his name had been struck off the rolls. The decision of the Labour Court, under such circumstances, denying to the workman a right of reinstatement and back wages was perfectly justified. There is no scope for interference and the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.09.2009 sanjeev