IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1208 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Mangat Ram -----Appellant. Vs. Presiding Officer & others -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. Whether the reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- workman against judgment of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the award of the Labour Court against the workman. 2. The appellant was employed on daily wage basis in the Department of PWD (Public Health), Government of Haryana. His services were terminated after about three years of working in the year 1990. After about five years, on 9.2.1995, he raised an L.P.A. No.1208 of 2010 industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The case of the workman was that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) while the case of the management was that the workman himself abandoned the job. The Labour Court held that the workman had in fact himself abandoned the job, as he never came forward either to perform his duties or to claim wages or to take any legal remedy and it was only after five years of unexplained delay that an industrial dispute was raised. The workman filed writ petition which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge. After referring to various judgments, learned Single Judge held:- “A perusal of the above would show that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, would be applicable to the case in hand, wherein it has been held that whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shishan Kumar (supra)1 also points out to the same position with regard to the abandonment of service. Similar is the position in the cases of Panipat Co- operative Sugar Mills Limited, Panipat (supra)2 and Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat and another (supra)3. It cannot be disputed that the onus to prove a fact or plea is on the party which asserts the same but the same can be discharged by the party by either 2 L.P.A. No.1208 of 2010 leading its own evidence or relying on the evidence produced by the other party. The Court considers and evaluates the evidence produced by the parties and then draws its own conclusions and forms its own opinion and on that basis returns its findings. The findings recorded by the Labour Court in the present case is correct and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. In this view of the matter, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the abandonment of the service by the petitioner- workman is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.” [1 = 2007(1) SCT 653, 2 = 1993(2) PLR 421 3 = 2010(124) FLR 251]. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no statutory limitation for raising an industrial dispute and thus, delay was relevant only to determine whether backwages were required to be awarded to the appellant. If the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Act, the workman was entitled to reinstatement irrespective of the period after which the dispute was raised. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. No doubt, no statutory limitation is provided, mere fact that a reference for adjudication was made, does not debar the Labour Court from determining the issue of fact as to whether the workman was 3 L.P.A. No.1208 of 2010 terminated from service or he voluntarily abandoned the job. In absence of any explanation of the workman, an inference could be drawn that the workman had himself left the employment, in which case Section 25F of the Act will not apply. The view taken by learned Single Judge does not, thus, call for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 18, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4