IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2905 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 06, 2009. Shri Hariram s/oSh. Neki Ram r/o Village Jaini, District Karnal. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding therein that the workman has abandoned the job and, therefore, is not entitled to any relief. Counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the workman was appointed as a Watchman on daily wage basis. His services were terminated illegally. He raised an industrial dispute and an award dated 04.11.1997 was passed by the Labour Court wherein he was held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. He contends that as per the award, the workman was to be taken back as a Watchman but C.W.P. No. 2905 of 2009. he was not assigned the duty of a Watchman. He contends that instead of taking the work of Watchman from the workman, he was deputed to dig the pits which is the work of a labourer. He on this basis contends that the award of the Labour Court has not been complied with. He, therefore, contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court about abandonment of the job, is not justified as he was never put back as a Watchman and was assigned the job of digging the pits which is not of a Watchman. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the Management did not have the work of a Watchman available with them. The workman was a daily wager and since they did not have the job of a Watchman, his reinstatement could only be as a daily wager which offer was given to the workman. He had not accepted the same and in his communication dated 11.08.1989 (Ex.M.12) the workman has stated that he would only re-join the duty as a Watchman and not otherwise. This response has come to the communication sent by the respondent- management, vide its letter dated 09.08.1989 (Ex.M.10) wherein the workman was called upon to join the duty as a daily wager. He further contends that no person junior to the petitioner-workman has been retained as a Watchman nor has any evidence come on record that any person junior to the workman has been assigned the duty of a Watchman. On the basis of these submissions, he contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence placed on record which does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. -2- C.W.P. No. 2905 of 2009. There is no dispute that the award was in favour of the workman which is dated 04.11.1997, reinstating the workman with continuity of service alongwith full back wages. It is also not in dispute that the workman was a daily wager who was assigned the duty of a Watchman. On his reinstatement, it is a categoric stand of the Management that they did not have the work of a Watchman and, therefore, he was called upon to join the duty as a daily wager to which category he was employed. The workman had himself in his communication dated 11.08.1989 (Ex.M.12) in response to the letter dated 09.08.1989 (Ex.M.10) stated that he would not be joining as a daily wager except if he is given duty of a Watchman. Perusal of these communications make it amply clear that the workman was called upon, vide letter dated 09.08.1989 by the Management to join duty but the workman refused to join the same as a daily wager. The finding of the Labour Court with regard to the abandonment of job is fully made out from the above referred to communications. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 06, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -3-