IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8806 of 1997 Date of decision: 30.07.2009 Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner versus M/s Lyallpur Rubber Mills, E-54, Industrial Area, ...Respondents Jalandhar and another. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Mahajan, 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 workman challenges the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference that he sought for through an adjudication whether his termination of services, was justified or not. 2. The case was one of willful absention without notice after which an enquiry had been constituted. Before the Enquiry Officer also, he had not participated in spite of notices having been sent to him and before the Labour Court, the contention by the workman was, he never received the notices sent by the management nor the notices purported to have been sent by the Enquiry Officer. Before the Labour Court, the management contended that the notices had been sent only to the last known address and the Labour Court had also the benefit of evidence of the workman himself, who admitted that he was receiving all his correspondences from the labour Union only at the address which had Civil Writ Petition No.8806 of 1997 - 2 - been mentioned in the pre-enquiry notice and in the notices that had been sent by the Enquiry Officer. The management also produced evidence of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had caused publication in a local daily before proceeding with the enquiry. 3. The Labour Court considered the evidence that the management had led even before the Conciliation Officer when he was offered to be taken back, but the workman did not deliberately join and insisted that he should be given the wages even for the period when he had not attended. It was the contention of the management that the workman himself was a highly skilled person and that he had the benefit of more remunerative employment elsewhere and that was the reason for his reluctance to join in spite of offer made before the Conciliation Officer. The workman himself had admitted to his status as highly skilled person whose services were always in demand in the market. The Labour Court found all the relevant circumstances and held that there had been no justification at all for his long absence and the management could not be faulted for the decision of dismissal, since it conformed to all procedural imperatives. 4. The award of the Labour Court is without any legal blemish and it is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.07.2009 sanjeev