IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12572 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 29.04.2010 Kalu Ram ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Gurdaspur and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the impugned Award dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any benefit on the ground that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 15 years in making the demand. The Labour Court has further concluded that the services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders applicable to him and that he had abandoned the job as well. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained as it has not taken into consideration the evidence so brought on record. The delay had been explained by the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court and that should have been taken into consideration. His further contention is that when the services of the petitioner-workman had been terminated, the principles of natural C.W.P.No.12572 of 2009 -2- justice were required to be complied with and it was obligatory upon the Management to hold a departmental enquiry against him as absence from duty is a misconduct. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management contends that it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner stand terminated as per Clause 19.12 of the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to the work-charge staff of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpur Kandi. The said provision provided for an intimation to the concerned employee of his absence through registered notices. These notices were duly served upon the petitioner-workman but despite service of said notices, the workman failed to report for duty nor did he put-forth any explanation for his absence from duty. In compliance with the said regulation, the services of the petitioner-workman stood terminated and, thus, the termination being in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to the petitioner, cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. Her further contention is that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 15 years in submitting the demand notice which itself goes to prove that the petitioner was not interested in the job. The finding with regard to the abandonment of the job is, thus, fully justified, being based upon the evidence led by the parties before the Labour Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court. In support of her contention, counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgments of this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurvinder Singh and others, 2009 (4) RSJ 456 and Dhir Singh Builder vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and C.W.P.No.12572 of 2009 -3- others, (CWP No.14095 of 2009) decided on 26.4.2010. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified being based upon evidence which has been placed on record. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 15 years in submission of the demand notice which itself shows that the dispute had become stale. That apart, the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman has been found to be in accordance with law. Clause 19.12 of the Certified Standing Orders is admittedly applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, his termination from service cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. The findings, thus, recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and do not call for any interference by this Court. The case in hand is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhir Singh Builder vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others (CWP No.14095 of 2009) decided on 26.4.2010. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. April 29, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE