IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1706 of 2006 Date of decision:24.09.2009 The Director, Haryana State Lotteries Department …Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Director, Haryana State Lotteries Department is the petitioner before this Court, challenging the award directing reinstatement, but without back wages. The contention of the workman was that he had been appointed as a Clerk and worked as such from 22.02.1995 to 31.03.1996 and after which time, he was prevented from continuing the work. He however raised a demand only 5 years later and he had not given any explanation for such a delay. The Labour Court proceeded to rely on the statement of the management-witness that the workman had completed 240 days of service and held further that if the workman had stopped coming to work, the management would have taken steps to mark him absent in the attendance register and since it was Civil Writ Petition No.1706 of 2006 - 2 - not produced by the management nor any explanation was offered as to why the document was not produced, the Labour Court held that the workman had nothing to lose by staying away from employment and held that it was not possible to accept the plea that the workman had abandoned the job himself. Taking into consideration that the workman had not immediately taken action but made a demand notice 5 years later, the Labour Court while directing reinstatement disallowed the claim for back wages. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the State, Shri Nalwa would contend that the question of violation of Section 25-F would not arise in a case where the retrenchment itself was not proved. On the other hand, according to the counsel, it was a case of voluntary abandonment by the workman and the reasoning of the Labour Court that the workman could not have abandoned the job, was not justified. If there were two inferences possible from a given set of facts and the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the failure of the management to show that he had been marked absent was itself sufficient to infer that he had been only prevented to resuming duty, I see no reason to take a different view. It may perhaps be possible that the Labour Court had rejected such a contention and accepted the management’s plea. It was essentially a matter of inference on the effect of non-production of some records which were definitely material and to which the management alone had the access. I am informed also that the workman has been reinstated by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court. I do not think that it is necessary to obstruct the status quo at this point of Civil Writ Petition No.1706 of 2006 - 3 - time after 5 years after the disposal of the award. The ultimate finding of the award is retained and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 24.09.2009 JUDGE sanjeev