IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.4914 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 10, 2011. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Bhiwani .....Petitioner versus Sh.Rajender and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner Forest-Department is aggrieved by the Award dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, reinstating respondent No.1-workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The Award has been challenged after a period of 3½ years. Be that as it may, learned State counsel has been heard on merits and the record perused. There is no denial of the fact that the respondent-workman served the department as Beldar-cum-Mali on daily wage basis w.e.f. 15.7.1992 to 28.2.2000. No retrenchment compensation was admittedly CWP No.4914 of 2011 [2] paid to the respondent-workman nor Section 25-G or later on Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were complied with. The only plea taken before the Labour Court as also reiterated before this Court on behalf of the Management is that the workman himself had abandoned the employment. The above stated plea cannot be accepted by this Court for two reasons. Firstly, the Labour Court, as a matter of fact, has held that the workman was retrenched from service. That being a finding of fact, no interference by this Court is called for unless it is shown that the said finding is contrary to the evidence on record. Similarly, the workman admittedly served the demand notice in the year 2000 itself. Had it been a case of voluntarily giving up the job and thereafter seeking reinstatement as an afterthought, there would have been some delay on the part of the workman in raising the dispute. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Award. Dismissed. August 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE