CWP No. 1728 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1728 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.02.2010 Siemen Laboratories (India) ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and back wages to the extent of 30% on the basis of last drawn salary. CWP No. 1728 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration nor given a finding to the effect that the workman had completed more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. His further contention is that the plea of the Management that the workman had abandoned his job, is proved from Annexures R-2 to R-4, which have been placed on record, which show that initially the workman was put under suspension and thereafter called upon to join duties but the workman failed to join the same. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the Management that the workman had not completed more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of alleged termination of service of the workman. This fact is not disputed by the Management nor any evidence is led in support of that contention. There being no issue on that, the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be said to be not correct. Further, it is not the stand of the Management that since the workman has not completed more than 240 days in service, therefore, he is not entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but the stand of the Management is that he had abandoned the job after he was put under suspension vide order dated 16.07.1997. The evidence which has been brought on record by the Management with regard to the suspension of the workman and thereafter the documents Annexures R-2 to R-4 show that he was called upon to join the duty but he has refused to accept the letters sent by the Management before the CWP No. 1728 of 2010 3 Labour Court. The reason for not accepting the said documents to be duly proved are spelt out by the Labour Court in clear and specific terms, which are fully justified and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is in consonance with law. There is no illegality or irregularity, which has been committed by the Labour Court while passing its impugned order which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 24, 2010 pj