IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16881 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 02.03.2009 Mangal Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. & others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman after being transferred from Kurukshetra to Ambala, joined the place of his posting/transfer in December, 1999 and thereafter proceeded on one day's sanctioned leave on 2.1.2000. Unfortunately, he met with an accident in the vehicle in which he was travelling due to which he had a back injury and as such, could not join duties. He moved an application for extension of leave. He could not join duties because of his ill health as he was taking treatment initially from Dr.Ajai Goel and thereafter from Swasthya Rakshak Aushadhalaya, Jind, and when he was given a certificate of fitness, he approached the respondent-Management on 26.2.2000 to re-join his duties C.W.P.No.16881 of 2008 -2- and it is only then he came to know that his services stood already terminated on 17.8.2000. He contends that the enquiry which has been held against him is an ex-parte enquiry as he was not given even an indication about his initial repatriation on 15.2.2000 from Ambala to Kurukshetra and thereafter the issuance of the notice with regard to his absence from duty, the charge-sheet, the holding of an enquiry and thereafter the show cause notice and ultimately his order of termination. Counsel submits that despite the fact that the address of the workman was known to the Management as mentioned by him in his letter dated 1.1.2000 vide which he had sought one day's leave and that he had given his correspondence address and the place where he was going but still no communication was sent to him on the address. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that they have proved on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence that all steps which were within the powers and jurisdiction of the Management to intimate the workman about his absence from duty, repatriation and other proceedings before the Inquiry Officer, were taken but still the workman did not come present nor participated in the enquiry proceedings nor responded to any communication so sent. The communications which had been sent to him were on the addresses that were given by him in his service book as well as the addresses provided by him. He further contends that the letters which had been sent to the workman were received back undelivered with the report that the address is not complete and, therefore, he could not be served. Counsel states that even if all this is ignored about absence, a notice was also published in Punjab Kesari on 10.3.2000 calling upon him to join back his duties. The C.W.P.No.16881 of 2008 -3- communication so sent to the workman has been exhibited on record and the Labour Court has on going through the letter, reliance whereof has been made by the workman with regard to his giving his correct address where he would be residing during his one day's leave which was sanctioned, has also been found to be not complete. The address given therein is incomplete which would, in any case, not have resulted in the receipt of the communication if sent on that address and as a matter of fact it was sent on this address as well, but the same were received back undelivered with the report that the address is incomplete. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has further contended that show cause notice dated 9.8.2000 issued to the workman granted him 15 days' time to respond. Without waiting for that period to expire, the termination order was passed on 17.8.2000 and, therefore, the termination order cannot be sustained. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the workman had only reported back on duty on 29.6.2000 and that too after publication of notice in the newspaper regarding his termination from service. This being the position, as the workman had not responded within the stipulated time period of 15 days, no prejudice has been caused to the workman on passing of termination order dated 17.8.2000. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the appellate order is not a speaking order, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-4, a perusal of the same would further indicate that this is only a communication which has been forwarded to the workman and it does mention that after careful examination of the appeal along with other relevant papers, the C.W.P.No.16881 of 2008 -4- appeal has been rejected. No illegality, therefore, can be said to have been committed while deciding the appeal of the workman. The next contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act should have been invoked in favour of the workman as he had an unblemished record of 23 years prior to the said misconduct, again cannot be accepted in the given facts and circumstances of the case as overwhelming evidence has come on record that the workman has been totally negligent in pursuing his remedies. He had not even responded to various calls given to him to join duties, besides the publication of notice in newspaper regarding his absence. Absence from duty is a grave misconduct and when the same has been found to be proved against the workman, no lenient view is called for as it has come on record that he was on duty with a particular truck which was transferred along with him and that truck obviously was idle during the absence of the workman. The order of termination passed by the Management is fully justified which does not call for any interference by the Labour Court or by this Court. Consequently, the writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. However, the costs of Rs.3000/- imposed by the Labour Court stands waived off. March 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No