IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5208 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 01, 2009. Ranjeet Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained for the reason that the management has been unable to prove that the workman had abandoned the job. He contends that the letters dated 15.05.2006 (Ex.M.W.1/2), 05.06.2006 (Ex.M.W.1/4) and 11.10.2006 (Ex.M.W.1/6), had not been received by the workman and the management had only sent the said letters through U.P.C. He submits that this would not be enough to show that the workman had abandoned the job as the same were not served upon the workman through registered post. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and Others, 1994 (4) S.C.C. 445. He further contends that C.W.P. No. 5208 of 2009. before termination the services of the workman, the principles of natural justice was required to be complied with. He contends that the termination of services of the workman would be because of absence without leave and this is a mis-conduct and therefore, termination could not have been made without complying with the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of L. Robert D'Souza Versus Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another, 1982 (1) S.C.C. 645. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It was a case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that because of his ill health, he was admitted in the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula, where he underwent operation. He applied for and was granted leave from 29.03.2006 to 02.05.2006. He submits that the fitness certificate was issued to the workman on 09.05.2006 by the doctor and thereafter he proceeded to resume duty with effect from 11.05.2006. He contends that despite of making all efforts on his part to join duty, the workman was not allowed to join duty by the management and therefore, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. On this basis, reply was called for by the Labour Court wherein the Management had filed the reply wherein a specific stand was taken that the workman had abandoned the job as despite of various letter written to him, he had not come back to join duty. It has also been stated that he was given an offer to join back his duty on the post but the workman failed to do so even before the Conciliation Officer as well as before the Labour Court. On -2- C.W.P. No. 5208 of 2009. the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the case wherein it is held that the workman had abandoned his service. This finding has been recorded on the basis of the letters dated 15.05.2006 (Ex.M.W.1/2), dated 05.06.2006 (M.W.1/4) and dated 11.10.2006 (Ex.M.W.1/6), which had been sent to the workman by the management for joining duty. These letters were sent under the postal certificate. The receipts have also been produced before the Labour Court which have also been proved that the address on which these letters were sent, were the same where the petitioner-workman was residing as the address was the same which was given by the workman in the demand notice and has admitted as a witness before the Labour Court. Apart from this, the offer of the management for taking him back in service on the same post before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before the Labour Court, having not been accepted by the petitioner-workman, clearly shows the non intention on the part of the workman to continue in service. The findings, therefore, recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be faulted with. Nothing has been produced on records by way of any document showing that the workman had ever approached the management for re-joining his duty as has been asserted by him in the demand notice. Not even the fitness certificate which the workman states, was issued to him by the doctor on 09.05.2006, has been placed on record which would infact show that the workman was still not fit to join the duty after 02.05.2006. His bald assertions made before the Labour Court when weighed across on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the Labour Court as well as the conduct of the workman before the Conciliation Officer as well as the Labour Court, not accepting the offer of the -3- C.W.P. No. 5208 of 2009. management to join back on the same post clearly shows that the workman had indeed abandoned the job. The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in the case of L. Robert D'Souza (supra), with regard to the principles of natural justice to be followed in case the services have to be terminated, would not be of any help in the light of the letters under postal certificate, sent to the workman for joining back duty, the principles of natural justice stood fully complied with. As regards the judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar and others (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has not relied on and dis- believed that notice be sent through U.P.C., the same also would not be of much help to the workman in view of the fact that the workman had despite being given an offer by the management to join duty during the conciliation proceedings as well as during the proceedings before the Labour Court, clearly indicates the intention of the workman of not joining the job, and therefore, is of no help. Finding no merit, the writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 01, 2009. sjks. -4-