IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4442 of 2010 Reserved on: 18.07.2011 Date of Decision: 26.7.2011 Jai Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 and 2: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the award dated 24.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla whereby he decided the reference against the present petitioner. 2. The following reference was sent for adjudication to the Labour Court:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Jai Singh S/o Shri Anoop Singh workman by the Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. w.e.f. 1.1.1998 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of 2 service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. According to the petitioner he was engaged as daily- wage workman in Solan Division of IPH circle Nahan from February 1997 to September 1997. Thereafter, his services were transferred to Nahan Division where he worked from September 1997 to December 1997 when his services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 despite the fact that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was first engaged in Solan Division and worked at Domehar upto 30.09.1997 when he left the job of his own accord. Thereafter, the petitioner worked at Sub Division Jamta from October 1997 to December 1997 and again abandoned his job without informing the respondents. 4. It would be pertinent to mention that the alleged termination was made in the year 1998. The reference was made only in the year 2009 and a claim petition was filed in which he again claimed that his services were terminated without issuing any notice. The respondents filed reply and contested the version of the petitioner and according to them the petitioner had abandoned his job. The parties led evidence. The only statement made by the 3 petitioner was that he was engaged as Beldar in February, 1997 when his services were terminated without paying compensation. He in cross-examination admitted that in February, 1997 he was engaged at a work in Kandaghat sub division and thereafter he worked at Jamta. There is no explanation as to how he shifted from Kandaghat to Jamta. 5. The respondents examined one witness and also placed on record certain documents. The record shows that the petitioner worked as Beldar in IPH section Domehar under IPH sub division Solan w.e.f. 11.2.1997 till 30.9.1997 and as per the record produced thereafter work was available at Domehar and in fact muster roll was issued and out of three post of Beldar only two could be employed and one remained vacant. It is more than obvious that the petitioner who belongs to Sirmaur got some work at Jamta Sub Division, which is nearer to his home and therefore left the job at Domehar and shifted to Jamta where he worked for three months. Thereafter, he did not join duty. 6. In the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that he had filed an original application in the year 1998 which was dismissed in the year 2002. There is no explanation what the petitioner did from that day till he made the demand notice. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not 4 deem it fit and proper to place on record a copy of the order passed by the learned Tribunal before the learned trial Court. As discussed above, it is apparent that the petitioner left the job at Domehar on his own accord and thereafter worked at Jamta, which job he also left. Even at Jamta muster rolls were issued and show vacant position of Beldar from January 1998 till March 1998 and if there was vacant position of Beldar the petitioner must have left the job of his own accord. The story of verbal termination appears to be totally incorrect. 7. In any event, the learned Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that the petitioner has abandoned the job. This finding of fact cannot be interfered in these proceedings. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 26th July, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.