IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1640 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 2, 2010 Hardeep Singh …Appellant Versus M/s Lyallpur Rubber Mills, Jalandhar and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Sumanpreet, Advocate, for Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 30.7.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court. It has been held that there was no justification for the appellant-workman for his long absence and the management could not be faulted for dismissing him from service on the basis of inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer where the workman did not participate inspite of the notices sent to him. The contention of the appellant-workman that he never received the notices sent by the management has been repelled by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge by recording a finding that the Inquiry Officer had caused publication in a local daily before proceeding with the inquiry besides sending notice at the last known address of the appellant-workman. The appellant- workman is a highly skilled person and the benefit of more remunerative employment elsewhere appears to be the reason for his reluctance to join in spite of offer made before the Conciliation Officer. It is appropriate to mention that on account of non-payment of wages for a period of 2½ months the appellant- workman refused to accept the offer of re-instatement made by the management. We find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE L.P.A. No. 1640 of 2010 (O&M) (RITU BAHRI) December 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2