IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6097 of 2011 Date of decision : 6.4.2011 Mehar Chand ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the award of the Labour Court-III, Faridabad dated 21.10.2009. He had raised an industrial dispute alleging that the termination of his services was erroneous. A perusal of the award reveals that the services of the petitioner were terminated after following due process of law. An enquiry was initiated on account of the fact that he had remained absent for 188.5 days during the period ranging from January 1996 to September 1996. The case of the petitioner was that he was prevented from attending his duties on account of the illness of his wife. In the impugned award, which is based on the evidence led by the parties to the reference, it has been noticed that the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 31.5.1996 and was discharged on 1.6.1996. The petitioner-workman brought on record the OPD slips C.W.P.No.6097 of 2011 -2- showing that his wife was sick and was under treatment. Be that as it may, if the wife of the petitioner was sick from 1990, it cannot be construed that he could remain absent for 188.5 days without any intimation to the management. Respondent No.2, therefore terminated the services of the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry in which the petitioner even though participated, but did not produce any evidence and neither did he cross-examine the witnesses produced by respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, when there is no plausible explanation coming forward from the petitioner as to why he was prevented from attending his duties for 188.5 days, I am of the opinion that no infirmity can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court. The interference under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act has to be based on cogent reasons and ordinarily the order of the punishing authority is not to be interfered with unless there are exceptional circumstances which have been overlooked by such an authority. The petitioner having absented himself for such a long period had thus invited action against him when he failed to project a plausible explanation for such an absence, and as observed earlier even before the Enquiry officer he failed to produce any such material which could substantiate his plea and could create some mitigating circumstance in his favour. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 6.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss