LPA No.400 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. LPA No.400 of 2009 in in CWP No.14571 of 1989 Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Mohan Lal ..Appellant. vs. The Presiding Officer & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. --- Present: Mr.S.K.Pipat,Senior Advocate, with Mr.Ramanjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal the appellant has impugned the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of CWP No.14571 of 1989, vide order dated 20.1.2009. During the course of hearing, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the retrenchment/termination of the appellant was in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that on account of the fact, that the appellant had rendered more than 240 days of service in one calendar year prior to his retrenchment/termination, it was imperative for the authorities to have complied with the mandatory provisions of issuing a notice to him, and also, in paying him retrenchment compensation. It is not possible for us to accept the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on account of the fact, that the LPA No.400 of 2009 2 services of the appellant were not dispensed with as a matter of ordinary retrenchment. As a matter of fact, the services of the appellant were terminated on account of his having remained absent from duty. As such the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not be attracted. We therefore, affirm the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the instant contention. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the appellant did not resume his duties consequent upon his reinstatement on account of the fact, that the appellant did not read the news-paper in which a notice was published on 21.10.1984 requiring him to resume his duties. As such, according to learned counsel, no detrimental action could validly emerge from the aforesaid notice. We are satisfied, that the second and the last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that consequent upon the suspension of the appellant vide order dated 17.3.1982, he was ordered to be reinstated on 20.2.1984. Since the appellant did not resume his duties (consequent upon the passing of the order of reinstatement), a public notice was issued on 21.10.1984 by issuing a press release. It is only when the appellant refused to assume his duties, even after the publication of the aforesaid notice, his services were terminated vide order dated 6.11.1984. In other words, in spite of his reinstatement in February 1984, the appellant remained absent till November 1984 when the adverse order was passed against him. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to notice that it is the conceded position at the hands of the appellant, that the appellant continued to participate in the departmental proceedings which were being conducted LPA No.400 of 2009 3 against him, and as such, it is not possible for us to accept, that the appellant was not in constant contact with the management. Therefore, not only as a consequence of the publication of the notice dated 21.10.1984, even otherwise, the appellant must have been aware of his reinstatement vide order dated 20.2.1984. The non compliance of the aforesaid order is therefore, apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, it is not possible for us to accept that a publication issued in the press remained unnoticed by the appellant who was making all efforts to regain his entry into active employment. Disastrous legal consequences would emerge, if the proposition, as the one suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, is accepted. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) Judge October 20, 2009 rk