IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6420 of 2011-G. Decided on November 29, 2011. Kishore Kumar …Petitioner. Versus District Horticulture Officer, Chamba …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G.. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis in Horticulture Department, in the year 1994. According to him, his services were orally terminated in February, 2003. He approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by filing an Original Application, seeking quashing of the action of the respondents in terminating his services. That petition was disposed of on 3.7.2003, with a direction to the respondents to re- engage the petitioner as Beldar. Petitioner was re- engaged, but again in the month of August, 2003, his services were orally terminated. Again, he filed Original Whet her r eport ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal held that it did not have the jurisdiction and that the petitioner, if so advised, could seek remedy by approaching the appropriate forum. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer and when conciliation did not materialize, reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamsala. Petitioner pleaded before the said Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court that his services were illegally terminated. 2. Respondents filed reply, in which it was pleaded that petitioner, after re-engagement pursuant to the order of the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, worked only for a few days, in the months of July and August, 2003 and thereafter abandoned the job. It was specifically stated in para 13 of the reply that a letter was sent to the petitioner on 8.9.2003, asking him to resume his duty as Beldar and when there was no response from him, reminders were sent to him on 1.12.2003, 2.7.2004 and ultimately on 27.1.2005, but he did not report for duty. Petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply. Though he denied the contents of para 13 of the reply in general terms, he did not specifically deny that letter dated 8.9.2003 and subsequent three reminders were received by him. 3. Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed issues, based on the pleadings of the parties and - 3 - afforded opportunities to both the sides to lead evidence. Respondents produced and proved aforesaid letter dated 8.9.2003 and three subsequent reminders as Exts. RW- 1/G, RW-1/H, RW-1/J and RW-1/K. Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court required the respondents to produce the relevant dispatch registers, but the same were not produced, on the plea that they stood destroyed. Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court concluded, on the basis of the aforesaid letter and reminders Exts. RW-1/G, RW-1/H, RW-1/J and RW-1/K, that the petitioner himself had abandoned the job and consequently, dismissed his claim. 4. Petitioner has challenged the award of learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dismissing his claim, by means of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned award is Annexure P-1. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the absence of production of dispatch registers or any other evidence, indicating as to in what manner and by what mode letter dated 8.9.2003 and the three reminders, copies Exts. RW-1/G, RW-1/H, RW-1/J and RW- 1/K, were sent to the petitioner, learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ought not to have relied upon - 4 - the copies of said letter and the reminders, to hold that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the job, though respondents made all possible efforts to enable the petitioner to resume duty. 7. It is true that the respondents did not produce the dispatch registers, which were supposed to be the best and the primary evidence, with regard to dispatch of the letter and the reminders, but merely on account of their non production, it cannot be said that the letters were not dispatched, particularly when the respondents took the plea that the registers stood already destroyed. As a matter of fact, petitioner, having not specifically denied in the rejoinder that he received the aforesaid letter and the reminders, he can be said to have impliedly admitted that such letter and reminders were received by him. A general and omnibus type of denial of contents of para 13 of the reply cannot be construed to amount to denial of specific plea of the respondents raised in the said para, that they had written the aforesaid letter and also sent reminders to the petitioner to rejoin duty, but there was no response. Petitioner ought to have specifically repudiated and controverted this plea of the respondents in the rejoinder. 8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that while appearing as his witness before learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, petitioner denied having received the letter and the reminders. - 5 - Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. The reason is that when in the rejoinder, there is no denial of the receipt of aforesaid letter and reminders, the testimony of the petitioner has to be ignored, being at variance with the pleadings. 9. As a result of the above discussion, petition is dismissed. November 29, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.