IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001 Date of decision: 09.09.2009 Motta Singh ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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. Neither the petitioner nor the counsel is present. The case is of the year, 2001 and the matter has been in list for final hearing for the last number of days. The name of the counsel for the petitioner also appears in the cause list, but he has not come present. I have proceeded to examine the records with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma and pass this order on merits. 2. The subject of reference before the Labour Court was an order of termination effected after a full-fledged enquiry on 06.09.1990. The charge against the workman was that he had been absent unauthorizedly between the period from 20.04.1989 to 19.05.1989 and again from 05.07.1989 to 25.10.1989 when notices had been sent to him Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001 - 2 - immediately after 25.10.1989 on several occasions requiring the workman to join duty. The workman did not respond and ultimately a charge-sheet was issued to him imputing the absence from duty intentionally as constituting the misconduct. The workman did not deny his absence or the fact that the leave was unauthorized. He cited his own domestic problems as reasons for his absence. When enquiry was taken up after the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the workman suffered a statement before the Enquiry Officer that he admitted all the charges and he did not want to go ahead with the enquiry. The report was, therefore, given by the Enquiry Officer finding him guilty of the charges and a show cause notice was issued calling upon the workman to show cause against the findings in the enquiry. The workman chose not to respond and ultimately the order of punishment was issued, removed him from service on 06.09.1990. 3. The workman did not prefer any intra-departmental appeal which was permissible under the rules and he sought to raise a demand notice impugning the punishment only on 22.11.1996, that is, after six years. The matter was referred to the Labour Court when a conciliation did not emerge to the benefit of the workman. The Labour Court had found that the charges had been proved and indeed the charges were admitted by the workman himself and the ultimate decision to terminate the services was found to be justified for unauthorized absence for a long period of more than three months, which has not been explained at any point of time. No proper explanation had also been given before the Labour Court for the inordinate delay for approaching the Court. The Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001 - 3 - award of the Labour Court considered all the relevant facts and came to the conclusion affirming the punishment inflicted upon the workman. I see no cause for interfering with the award of the Labour Court, rendered after a comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the case. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.09.2009 sanjeev