IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP.No.2681 of 2008. Date of Decision: 24.11.2011. _______________________________________________ H.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Cleave Land Shimla, through its Chief Executive Officer. ….Petitioner. Versus. 1. The Presiding Judge, H.P.Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, Shimla, Distt. Shimla, H.P. 2. Sh. Dola Ram S/o Sh. Lekh Ram, Village Nadohat, P.O.Hinri, Tehsil Sunni, Distt. Shimla, H.P. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. For the petitioner: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent-2: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J (Oral). This writ petition has been instituted by the H.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board challenging the award made by the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla on 26.8.2008 on a reference by the State Government at the instance of the respondent No.2 claiming that his removal from service without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was illegal. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 2. Respondent No.2 was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He claimed that he worked as daily waged Clerk /helper with the H.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board from October 1985 to December 1993 and thereafter from September, 1994 to November, 1996. He submitted that he had remained under mental depression from December, 1996 to March 1998 and under treatment of Psychiatric Department of I.G.M.C., Shimla. In these circumstances, he could not attend his duties. He was again allowed to work as daily wager w.e.f. 20.4.1998 till 19.6.1998 and then up to 31st December, 1999 and during this period, he was not paid salary for the period from 20.6.1998 to 2.6.1998 and 1.10.1999 to 31.10.1999. The learned Tribunal settled five issues on the pleadings. On the first question as to whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with before resorting to his dismissal, the learned Court holds in favour of the workman. 3. What I find from the case is that the petitioner appeared as his own witness reaffirming the facts on the issue. The case of the respondent (petitioner herein) was that the petitioner was re-engaged in the year 1994 and worked for 90 days and then he was reengaged in September, 1994 till February, 1995. Thereafter he was reengaged in April, 1995 and worked till November, 1996. According to the petitioner-board, the respondent No.2 had abandoned his job and then was re-engaged in April, 1998 when he again worked for 46 days. In short, the stand of the respondents is 3 that the petitioner has remained absent without valid leave which amounted to abandonment. The learned Tribunal holds that Ext.PA which contains a certificate that the petitioner is fit to resume his duties proves the fact that he was under psychiatric treatment and in these circumstances the provisions of the ‘Act’ required to be complied with. 4. In writ proceedings challenging an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, a meticulous re-appreciation of facts cannot be resorted to. But at the same time, what I find from the award is that it becomes conjectural when it deals with the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 herein that he remained absent from duty because of mental illness. This fact could have been very well proved from the treatment record as evidenced by the medical record/prescription slips of the I.G.M.C. or any other registered medical practitioner showing the petitioner’s inability to attend to his job. Obviously if he was ill, it could not be said that he has abandoned his job and he would be entitled to leave of the kind due. 5. In these circumstances, without entering into any other controversy, this case is remanded to the Labour Court for determination afresh as to whether the period of absence of the petitioner was, in fact, necessitated by mental illness. For this purpose, the Tribunal will give both parties an opportunity of leading evidence. Needless to say that hyper technical approach will not be adopted by the Tribunal for the reason that the record does indicate that the petitioner was 4 suffering from mental depression and he remained under treatment in hospital. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction as above. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 29th June, 2012. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. November 24,2011(R)