IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6350 of 2011 Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the award dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala. He questioned his termination by raising an industrial dispute and a reference to the following effect was forwarded to the Labour Court for adjudication :- “Whether the termination of services of workman Anil Kumar is valid and justified? If not so to what relief is he entitled?” The petitioner's claimed that he was working as a Clerk and had put in more than 240 days in the last 12 preceding calendar months prior to dispensation of his services but the same was negated on the ground that it was a case where the petitioner seemingly had C.W.P.No.6350 of 2011 -2- abandoned his services and not a case where the respondents had terminated his services. The Labour Court tested the contention of the petitioner that he was not made aware of any proceedings against him on the basis of evidence that the respondent – management had produced and it transpired that the plea of the petitioner was not substantive for the simple reason that the address of the petitioner was the same which he had furnished before the Labour Court and upon which notices had been sent to him. The Labour Court also found that the petitioner had abandoned his services as there was no order of termination and it is the only petitioner who failed to report for duty. While assailing the award, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the positive finding to the effect that the petitioner having worked for more than 240 days had been recorded, this is sufficient for the Labour Court to order all the consequential benefits accruing therefrom by holding that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. I am afraid such a contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any material to that effect. The petitioner has not been able to show that his services had been terminated ever by the respondents. There is no order of termination on record and neither has any been shown to the Court. Besides, the respondents have proved that numerous correspondence was dispatched to the address of the petitioner to report for duty but went unanswered and the plea of the petitioner that he had not been served with these letters does not C.W.P.No.6350 of 2011 -3- inspire any confidence because of the fact that the address on the correspondence issued by the respondents and the address furnished by the petitioner before the Labour Court was the same. On both counts, therefore, the plea of the petitioner is untenable and no fault can be found with the findings of the Labour Court. Consequently, the petition is found to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed. 26.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss