IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8167 of 2009. Date of Decision : February 23, 2010. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Bhiwani now The Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial, Bhiwani ...... Petitioner. Versus. Smt. Kitabo wife of Shri Nand Ram, Village Bardu Mugal, P.O. Budhera, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent . AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the Award dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, (in short “Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent/Workman (in short “the Workman”), holding her entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and 50 per cent back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., 04.12.2000. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific stand of the petitioner/Management (in short “the Management”) before the Labour Court was that the service of the Workman was never terminated by it and, as a matter of fact, the Workman stopped coming to her duty and it was a case of abandonment of service on behalf of the Workman. A categoric finding had been given by the Labour Court that the Workman had not completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination and, therefore, she was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F C.W.P. No. 8167 of 2009. -2- of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short “the Act”). The benefit of Section 25-G of the Act has not been given to the Workman, which is alleged to have been violated by the petitioner/Management as two persons namely, Zile Singh son of Shish Ram and Rajesh son of Deep Chand, who were appointed subsequent to the Workman, had been retained in service. He contends that no finding had been recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the stand of the Management that the Workman had abandoned her service. His contention is that apart from the statement of Kamal Singh, Range Forester, Loharu/MW-1, muster rolls Ex. M/2 to Ex. M/49 were produced by him, which would clearly show that the Workman had abandoned the service and, therefore, the stand of the Management was fully justified. On the other hand, counsel for the Workman submits that the complete records were not produced by the Management Witness and, therefore, the evidence, which had been produced before the Labour Court, had been duly considered and returned a finding that two persons, namely, Zile Singh and Rajesh, who were appointed after the Workman, had been retained by the Management, leading to violation of Section 25-G of the Act. He on this basis prays that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the Workman relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Presiding Officer and another, 2007 (1) S.C.T. 205, in support of this contention. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not disputed that a specific stand had been taken by the Management about the abandonment of service by the Workman. The muster rolls had also been produced by the Management Witness before the Labour Court. In the statement given by MW-1/Kamal Singh, Range Forester, C.W.P. No. 8167 of 2009. -3- Loharu, he had specifically stated that the Workman had left the service on her own. A perusal of the Award shows that no finding had been recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the stand taken by the Management. In case, the stand of the Management is accepted then the question of 25-G of the Act being violated does not arise. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the Workman, i.e., State of Haryana Versus Presiding Officer and another (supra), was a case where the Department had not produced the muster rolls and there was no documentary evidence on record to support the contention made by the Department with regard to abandonment of service. In view of the fact that the Labour Court had not returned any finding on a specific stand taken by the Management with regard to abandonment of service by the Workman, the Award dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The case is remanded back to the Labour Court, Rohtak, for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 15.03.2010. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 23, 2010. sjks.