IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1185 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.7.2010. Hans Raj ….. Petitioner. Vs. Managing Director, H.P.T.D.C. Ltd. and ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, . For the Respondents : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The challenge in this writ petition is award dated 3.3.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Shimla. The following reference has been received for adjudication by the Labour Court from the appropriate Government:- “Whether the action of the Regional Manager, HPTDC, place Hotel, Chail not to allow Sh. Hans Raj S/o Shri Kripa Ram daily wage workman to resume duty w.e.f. 21.5.1996 after leave is legal and justified? If not, what back wages, seniority, service benefits and relief the concern workman is entitled to?” 2. On evidence, the Labour Court found that it was not a case of illegal termination but it was a situation of the workman relinquishing the work despite the request to report for duty. In this context, it has also been appreciated that alleged termination is in the year 1996 and the - 2 - petitioner took steps to put in motion the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only after a few years. Be that as it may, it has come in evidence that the petitioner had not approached the respondents. Thus, we found that the Labour Court had taken into consideration the material available on record and has passed a just appropriate and reasonable award. We do not find any perversity in the impugned award. 3. Be that as it may, this Court has already passed the order dated 27.4.2010 permitting the petitioner to make a representation before the first respondent, that has been rejected. According to the petitioner, the direction is without opportunity of being hearing. Therefore, we permit the petitioner to make a representation again before the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is an illiterate workman having no telephone for a communication and hence, the petitioner could not be communicated the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by this Court for appearance before Managing Director. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation does not require the services of the daily wage workers and hence there is no question of having any re-engagement. We make it clear that in case the respondents ever engage the services of a daily wage worker, the petitioner shall be given reference. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 19, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (sks/grs) Judge.