IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14049 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 29.04.2010 Data Ram ....Petitioner(s) vs. P.O.L.C., Ludhiana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Poonam Sambhar, Advocate for Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 2.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner- workman holding him not entitled to any benefits. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is alleged to have absented himself from duty from 3.6.1998 to 14.6.1998 and thereafter from 16.6.1998 onwards. She contends that the petitioner was initially working as a Sweeper at Sangrur and he was transferred to Abohar on 30.10.1998. It is alleged that he failed to join at Abohar and, therefore, a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that his services had been rightly terminated as he had abandoned the service. She contends that in case the allegations are that the petitioner-workman had absented himself from duty, a departmental enquiry was mandated as C.W.P.No.14049 of 2009 -2- per the Statute and non-holding of the same would render the order of termination illegal. The communication so sent to the petitioner was at his Ludhiana address whereas he was residing at his village Kheri. Counsel, therefore, contends that the petitioner did not receive any of the communications referred to by the Management and, thus, the principles of natural justice were violated while terminating his services as he did not get any opportunity to put-forth his explanation before the respondent- Management. On this basis, she prays that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents vehemently argues that the petitioner was, in accordance with law, transferred from Sangrur to Abohar vide order dated 30.10.1998. Since he failed to join the said post at Abohar after being relieved on 13.11.1998, the Management had made all due efforts to inform him and ask him to join his duties but despite the communications addressed to him, he did not report for duty at Abohar. Left with no option, the Management had thereafter issued publication in the Daily Tribune and Daily Ajit dated 26.6.1999 calling upon the petitioner-workman to report for duty within a period of 20 days. To these publications also, the petitioner did not respond. He, on this basis, contends that despite best efforts being made by the respondent- Management, the petitioner did not join his duties and thus, the termination of his services was in accordance with law, he having abandoned the job. On this basis, he contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court being based upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, cannot be faulted with and, thus, no interference is called for by this Court in the C.W.P.No.14049 of 2009 -3- impugned Award. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred from Sangrur to Abohar vide order dated 30.10.1998 and he was relieved from Sangrur on 13.11.1998. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not join his duties at Abohar. The contention of the petitioner was that he was not allowed to join duty at Abohar although he had gone there in compliance with the order passed by the respondent-Management. The onus to prove this aspect before the Labour Court was on the petitioner- workman himself which, however, he failed to prove. Over and above, there is no communication even addressed to the Management that he was not allowed to join at Abohar which would have justified or at least showed his willingness to join at Abohar. No document has been placed on record which would suggest that the petitioner after being relieved from Sangrur had approached the Management in any manner claiming that his transfer was not in accordance with law or that he had represented to the Management that he did not want to be posted at Abohar. In absence of any evidence in this regard, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not allowed to join at Abohar after his transfer from Sangrur. That apart, various communications in the form of letters had been sent to the petitioner at the address which he had given to the Management, which fact was not disputed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Even the Management went to the extent of issuing publication in the Daily Tribune and Daily Ajit dated 26.6.1999 calling upon the petitioner to join duties C.W.P.No.14049 of 2009 -4- within a period of 20 days. All these documents which have been placed on record, clearly go to show that all out efforts were made by the Management to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct and to report for duty which the petitioner failed to do. Thus, the only conclusion, which can be drawn is that the workman had abandoned his job. The findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with being based upon the evidence led by the parties before it. So much so, no illegality or irregularity have been committed by the Labour Court which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. April 29, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE