CWP No.11323 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11323 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2011 DHARAM BIR ...PETITIONER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ...RESPONDENTS LUDHIANA & ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. DHEERAJ JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for setting aside of the order of the Labour Court dismissing his claim for reinstatement with respondent No.2. The contention of the petitioner was that he was illegally terminated from service on 4.5.1982, without issuing any notice to him before such termination. There was not even an order to that effect. His contention was that for some murder in the factory he had been arrested on a complaint by the Management and he had been in custody with the police and later in judicial custody from 4.5.1982, till the trial was completed. He was acquitted in 18.8.1983. When he reported to his duty on release, he was informed that he had been struck off the rolls. On a dispute being raised, the contention of the Management was that he had abandoned the duty. This statement of the respondent was accepted by the Labour Court. To my mind, the case of abandonment simply does not arise. The Management CWP No.11323 of 1989 -2- itself ought to have known that the petitioner had been taken into custody as a suspect in the murder case and it was also brought through evidence that the Management staff had also been cited as prosecution witness in the criminal Court where the workman was standing trial. The order of termination could not have been passed without constituting in some way an enquiry against the petitioner or at least passing an order of termination if the arrest in standing trial was in any way justifiable ground for termination of service. An acquittal in a criminal case in itself may not be a decisive factor. For any enumerated misconduct, there could have been independent proceedings by the Management and the rule of natural justice would require that even a person in custody was required to be given an opportunity before termination order was passed. It could not have been taken as a case of abandonment for, the Management ought to have known that it was not possible for the workman to report for duty when he was held in custody. 2. The denial of employment to the petitioner under the circumstances was unjustified. However, the relief of reinstatement may not be possible at this length of time in view of the subsequent event that the factory itself has been closed and notice sent through Court has come back returned that the factory has been closed. The petitioner also admits that the factory remains closed, but there are persons who are running the company who could be available. The petitioner had held a service of one year with the factory at that time and instead of providing for the reinstatement, I will provide to the petitioner with the relief of `25,000/- as compensation for illegal termination with interest at 6% from the date of this order till the date of payment. The petitioner will be at liberty to enforce the same in CWP No.11323 of 1989 -3- accordance with law against respondent No.2. 3. Writ petition is disposed of. March 10, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE