Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. Date of decision:18-1-2008. Priti Pal ...Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. R. S. Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 27.1.1995, Annexure P-1, passed by the Labour Court, Ambala whereby it was held that he was not entitled to any relief. Through the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he seeks quashing of the same. The following facts emerge from his pleadings:- The petitioner joined the service of respondents in October, 1979 and continuously worked upto October, 1983, when his services Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -2- were terminated. No retrenchment compensation was offered or paid to him at the time of termination of his services and as such it was violative of Section 25F of the Act. No notice was given to him. He had been visiting the office of the respondents for giving work to him but no work was given to him and ultimately, he had served notice on which the present reference was made to the Labour Court, Ambala. Persons junior to him were still working at the time of termination of his services. As such, termination of his services was against the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act ( in short the Act). Even if the plea of the management that the petitioner remained absent from duty is accepted, he had more than four years of service to his credit. Absence from duty is a major mis-conduct and it was necessary for the management to issue a charge sheet and hold an enquiry before terminating his services. No opportunity of defence having been given, the action of the respondent-management is violative of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court erred in law in declining relief to him on the ground of delay and laches. Respondent No.3 contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined the service of answering respondent in October,1979 and he worked till September,1983. The services of the petitioner were never terminated but he himself remained absent and left the service of his own. As the petitioner was working as a daily wager, there was no necessity for issuance of any charge-sheet and holding of any enquiry. It was not mandatory on the Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -3- part of respondent to pay retrenchment compensation as the petitioner himself abandoned his job by absenting himself. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has held that the petitioner absented for more than 5-1/2 years and on that count abandoned his job. The said finding is based upon no reasoning. In case the petitioner has absented, in that case, there is a gross mis-conduct and the services of the petitioner could only be terminated by ordering regular enquiry. The petitioner has taken a stand that the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H have not been complied with and on that count, termination of his services is illegal but the learned Labour Court has not discussed these provisions of law while declining the case. The order of the Labour Court is vitiated on that count. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) Sita Ram Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala. 1995(4) Service Cases Today 321. (2) L. Robert D'Souza v.The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 854. (3) M/s. Scooters India Ltd. v.M.Mohammad Yaqub and another, 2001 Lab. I. C.71. Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -4- (4) Syndicate Bank Versus The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another, 2004(4) SCT 206. (5) Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited, Bhuna, District Fatehabad Versus Mohinder Singh, 2000(3) SCT 1047. (6) Prem Singh and others Versus Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) Recent Services Judgments 690. (7) Ajaib Singh Versus The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- processing Service Society Ltd. and another, 1999(2) Recent Services Judgments 407. (8) Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC and another Versus Kamal Kumar, (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 817. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. The petitioner has joined service with the respondent in October, 1979 as daily wager and according to him, his services were terminated with effect from October, 1983. However, according to the case of the respondents, the petitioner joined as a daily water in the month of October, 1979 but he absented from September, 1983 and thereafter he abandoned his job. The Labour Court after appraisal of evidence on the file came to the conclusion that the workman absented Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -5- himself from the job and thereafter he did not return to his duty. It has been further held that since he is a daily rated worker, it was not incumbent upon the management to serve any notice on him especially when he has not chosen to set the law in motion for a period of about six years. It is not disputed that the demand notice was issued on 6.2.1989 i.e. about 5 years and 5 months of the alleged termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the Labour Court has not dealt with the effect of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H, on that count, the award is vitiated. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. No reasonable explanation for not making the reference for a period of more than 5 years has been placed on the file. The provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H will come into operation only if the petitioner was willing to join duty. He was a daily rated worker. The learned Labour Court has rightly concluded that there was no necessity of holding any enquiry as the petitioner has himself absented from duty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Haryana State Co-op. Land Dev. Bank Versus Neelam, 2005 A.I.R (SC) 1843 has held that procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and doctrine of acceptance Subsilentio are applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. A Full Bench of our High Court in Ram Chander Morya Versus State of Haryana, 1999 (1) S.C.T141 has held that although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference but belated reference is bad. Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -6- Authority in Sita Ram's case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, services of the workman were terminated. There is no such dispute in the present case. The petitioner has not joined duty after September, 1983 and the reference was made for the first time in the month of February, 1989. Authority in L. Robert D'Souza' case (supra) relates to striking off the name of the workman from roll and as such is distinguishable. Authority in Mohammad Yaqub's case (supra) relates to over-stay of leave. Authority in Syndicate Bank's case (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, the services were terminated. In Mohinder Singh's case (supra), it has been held that the onus to prove abandonment is upon the management. There is no dispute with that proposition of law. However, in the present case, the conduct of workman proved abandonment as he has not ventilated his grievance for about 5 years and 5 months. Authority in Prem Singh's case (supra) relates to declining of reference under Section 137 of the Limitation Act on the ground of limitation. In the present case, reference was made and has been adjudicated upon. Authority in case Ajaib Singh (supra) also relates to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Authority in Kamal Kumar's case (supra) relates to reinstatement on the same post from which the services of workman were terminated. However, in the present case, since the petitioner has abandoned his job, as such the said authority is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Civil Writ Petition No.267 of 2007 decided on 31.8.2007 Civil Writ Petition No.8242 of 1996. -7- titled Divisional Forest Officer (Social), Hisar Versus Krishan Kumar and another, a Division Bench of this Court, relying upon authorities in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 8, State of U.P. Versus Neeraj Awasthi, (2006) 1 SCC 667, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and Gangadhar Pillai v, Siemens Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 533, has held that Section 25F is not applicable to the casual labourer on daily wages. In view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. January 18 ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge