IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22725 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 08, 2011. Shori Lal .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was an Assistant Lineman with the Punjab State Electricity Board. His services were terminated w.e.f. 9.5.1991 and after more than 11 years, he raised an industrial dispute alleging his illegal retrenchment from service. The Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, vide impugned Award dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-1) has accepted the plea taken by the respondent- Management that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for his absence from duty vide memo No.C-144 dated 9.5.1991 and since he refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings, an ex-parte enquiry was held, based upon which his services were terminated. The Tribunal has further taken CWP No.22725 of 2011 [2] notice of the fact that the petitioner, during the long absence of 11 years, made no attempt to join the duties nor he participated in the enquiry proceedings. The plea that the petitioner himself abandoned the employment by remaining absent from duty, has also find favour with the Tribunal, who has accordingly answered the reference against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Leaned counsel for the petitioner might be right in contending that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated retrospectively w.e.f. 9.5.1991 when he allegedly absented from duty, as the enquiry was held subsequently. The said technicality does not come to the petitioner's rescue for the reason that the Tribunal has found that he himself abandoned the employment from that date. Keeping the afore-stated finding of fact in view, it does not appear to be a fit case to interfere with the impugned Award in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dismissed. December 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE