C.W.P. No.12393 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12393 of 2003 Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited through its General Manager, Sector-6, Panchkula .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. By the impugned order, the workman's claim that he had been illegally terminated from service on 30.07.1996 was accepted and the Labour Court found him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Labour Court was refusing the contention urged on behalf of the management that the workman had abandoned his service on 30.07.1996. Before the Labour Court, it was in evidence that there had been disputes between the workman and the management and a settlement had been entered into on 15.07.1996, in terms of which the workman joined duty on 16.07.1996. On 17.07.1996, it appears that a C.W.P. No.12393 of 2003 -2- circular had been sent to all workmen stipulating the time of commencement of work and warning the workmen of termination of service, if there was any breach by the workmen. On 25.07.1996, the management had purported to have issued a notice to the workman bringing pointed attention to the fact that the workman was not coming to duty on time and warning him of departmental action. Again on 02.08.1996, yet another notice had been sent addressing him of the fact that the workman was not coming on time and that on 30.07.1996 he reported at 8.30 when the time for reporting was 8 O'clock. These two letters had not been admitted to have been received and it was contended by the management that they had been deliberately refused by the workman. It was pursuant to these communications that the management said that the workman had abandoned his duty. 2. It could be seen that after the settlement on 15.07.1996, even if the contention of the management was to be taken as wholly correct and the workman had been not regular in attending to duty, it leaves still no scope for deducing that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the duty. The letters dated 25.07.1996 and 02.08.1996 make complaints about the alleged improper conduct of the workman in not reporting to duty in time. A case of abandonment is simply not possible for the conduct alleged to have been exhibited by the workman in manner referred to in the notices dated 25.07.1996 and 02.08.1996 merely complain about the late coming of the workman. Even if the circular issued on C.W.P. No.12393 of 2003 -3- 22.07.1996 enables the management to treat the misconduct as resulting in automatic termination, rules of natural justice will have to be still read into such of clause as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Precision Screws Vs. Ram Bhagat AIR 2002 SC 2914. The Labour Court had examined the case with reference to the respective contentions of the parties and had come to a conclusion, which in my view, correct by, that there had been no voluntary abandonment of service and the termination had been effected without statutory compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The workman was an unskilled worker and there is no ground to believe that he had remained unemployed in all these years. For the period that he did not work, provision of full back wages may not be appropriate. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, affirmed with regard to the reinstatement with continuity of service and the award shall stand modified only to the portion relating to grant of full back wages, which is modified to provide for 50% back wages. 4. The writ petition is dismissed with modification as mentioned above. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 26, 2009 Pankaj*