IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. Date of Decision : January 20, 2009. Mohan Lal. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Bathinda and others. ...... Respondents. -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 24.11.1988 wherein the reference has been answered against the workman, holding him not entitled to any relief. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with respondent No. 2 on 23.09.1975. On the allegations of misbehaviour and embezzlement of Rs. 25.50 of the Corporation Revenue, in violation of the rules and indiscipline, he was put under suspension on 17.03.1982. The petitioner was reinstated on 20.02.1984 during the inquiry and was transferred to Bathinda Depot No. 1 from Depot No. 2. As per the respondents, the information of this order was sent to the petitioner at his permanent address as supplied by him but the same was returned as un-delivered. The same notice was also sent to the petitioner again that also was returned un-delivered. Thereafter, C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. notice was published in the newspaper Daily Ajit, Jalandhar, on 21.10.1984 calling upon the petitioner to appear in the office of Bathinda Depot, within six days of the publication thereof, failing which the notice said that the services would be terminated without any further notice or departmental inquiry w.e.f. 21.02.1984. The petitioner failed to report on duty and his services were terminated w.e.f. 21.02.1984, vide order dated 06.11.1984. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the above factual metrix submits that the workman was issued an identity card by the respondents wherein his correspondence address was clearly mentioned. The said identity card dated 11.06.1982 is Ex.W.4/1. Since the identity card has been issued by the respondent-management, the natural consequences was that the address on which any correspondence through which the workman was to be informed, would be the address as mentioned in the identity card. Having not sent the communication and notices at the address as given in the identity card, it cannot be said that the proper opportunity was given to the workman or proper information was conveyed to the workman with regard to his requirement to re-join the service on his reinstatement. He further submits that the publication in the newspaper Daily Ajit, dated 21.10.1984, was not read by the petitioner and because of which he was unable to get the information that he has been reinstated in service and he was therefore, required to report for duty within the time stipulated therein. He further submits that in any case since Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, the workman was entitled to reinstatement as it is not in dispute that no inquiry was held before terminating the services of the workman. Reliance has been put by counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court -2- C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. in the case of Mani Ram Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others, 1996(2) R.S.J. 95. It is further the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the workman should have been granted some joining time to put in appearance before the authorities as per the notice in the newspaper. He relied upon the Judgment of Gope Massey Muni Market, Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon, Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another, 1992 (2) R.S.J. 95. Counsel further relying upon the Judgment of Ex Constable Tarsem Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, to submit that where the action of the management is found contrary to the principles of natural justice, the consequences would be reinstatement of the workman in service. In any case, counsel for the petitioner submits that a lenient view was required to be taken in the present case as he had a service of around more than nine years with the respondents, he should have been given an opportunity to re-join the service even if at the cost of not paying him the back wages. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the stand taken by the respondents they have only said that there was a delay of more than 10 days and there was service of more than 9 years which is long period, and therefore, the punishment of termination was not called for. Another submission which has been put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that assuming whatever facts have been stated and findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court are accepted, the order of termination dated 06.11.1984 cannot be sustained as it could not have its effect from 21.02.1984, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits which would have accrued to him. -3- C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the award would show that the factual metrix which has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner is infact the same but the submissions as put forth by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The first submission which has been put forth is with regard to the non issuance of the notices at his correspondence address. In this regard, it is not in dispute that the permanent address as supplied by the petitioner-workman was taken by the respondents for sending the communication to him. The requirement of the rules also are to the same effect. In any case, if those notices were not sent at the correspondence address but still there was a publication of notice in the daily newspaper Ajit on 21.10.1984 Ex.M.4 which was again the requirement of the rules, the same stood complied with. The presumption attached with the publication is that it would be known to one and all and specifically the workman that he was required to join duty on his reinstatement. The submission of the workman that he has not read the same and therefore was unable to join duty, cannot therefore be accepted. The second submission of counsel for the petitioner that application of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with and therefore, the workman is entitled to reinstatement, the same also would not be of any help to the workman as there would be a case of punishment for the reason that despite of notices being issued to him and thereafter publication calling upon him to re-join his place of posting, the workman failed to report despite all this. In the light of this, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. That being the position, the Judgment relied upon -4- C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. by counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mani Ram (supra), would not be of any help to the petitioner. The third submission of counsel for the petitioner that the workman should have been granted time to join duty on publication also would not be of any help as the workman did not read the newspaper as per his assertion and therefore, was not aware of his requirement to join duty. Even if the time would have not extended that would not be of any help to the workman, and therefore, the judgment in the case of Gope Massey Muni Market (supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention that principles of natural justice have not been complied with, also would not be of much help to the petitioner as it has been proved on record that the notices were issued to the workman and publication was very much there in the newspaper calling upon him to join duty which the workman failed to do. The contention that he was merely absent for ten days for which the service of the workman has been terminated, cannot be accepted for the reasons that the pleadings would show that what has been pleaded therein is that the absence was for more than 10 days and it is an admitted position that the publication in the newspaper was dated 21.10.1984 in which he was called upon to show cause within a period of six days of such publication. He did not come present as is his case that he never came to get to know about the publication as he has not read it. That being the position and in view of the fact that the pleadings referred to more than ten days of absence, this submission cannot be accepted. He relied upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pepsu Road -5- C.W.P. No. 14571 of 1989. Transport Corporation Versus Presiding Officer, 1994 (4) S.C.T. 444. A perusal of the said Judgment would show that the question involved therein was with regard to the lien under the standing orders as to whether that would amount the retrenchment. In the present case, the question is totally different where the workman has absented himself from duty despite of various reminders having been issued to him and is a case of punishment of his services, therefore, no benefit can be granted to workman on this score. Another submission which has been put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 06.11.1984 cannot be sustained as it has an effect from 21.02.1984. This submission of counsel for the petitioner is partly accepted as the order would infact be illegal to the extent that the termination would relate back to 21.02.1984. This order of termination would be effective from 06.11.1984 on the date the said order was passed by the competent authority. In the light of the above, I upheld the award passed by the Labour Court dated 24.11.1988 (Annexure-P-1) with a modification that the workman will be entitled to all benefits under the rules governing the service for the period from 21.02.1984 to 06.11.1984 as the said order cannot have a retrospective effect but the termination order would be prospective in nature from 06.11.1984. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 20,2009. sjks. -6-