IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10179 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 21.01.2009 Om Parkash ....Petitioner(s) vs. M/s Shree Cement Ltd. and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ramesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein is challenging the award dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh vide which the reference made to the Labour Court has been answered against the workman holding therein that the services of the workman were not terminated by respondent-Management rather it is the workman who has been absenting for obvious reasons. It has further been held that the Management is willing take back the workman in job and reinstate him on the same terms and conditions on which he was working on 14.1.2002 and further that the workman would not be entitled to any back-wages. Counsel for the petitioner-workman has submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court in its impugned award are not sustainable as a perusal of communication dated 24.3.2002 ( Annexure P-3) received by the workman from the respondent-company would show that C.W.P.No.10179 of 2008 -2- the services of the workman had been terminated as he had been absenting himself from duty and had failed to report back despite the said communication. Counsel submits that since the services of the workman were terminated, therefore, even if the alleged absence from duty is held to be a misconduct then also no inquiry has been held and further, no compensation as required under the Industrial Disputes Act has been paid to the workman which would be in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, thereby resulting in holding that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. I have gone through the letter/communication dated 24.3.2002 (Annexure P-3) referred to by the counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned award dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure P-6). A perusal of the letter/communication (Annexure P-3) upon which reliance has been made by counsel for the petitioner would show that since the workman has been absenting himself from duty and he was directed to report for duty failing which, it was stated therein it would be deemed that the workman was no longer interested in continuing with the temporary service with the Management and has left the same of his own accord. The said communication cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as a termination order which is rather an offer to the workman to rejoin his duties at the place from where he had been absenting. A perusal of the award would further show that Sh.Manoj Sharma, who appeared as MW-1 has in his statement, denied that the services of the workman were ever terminated. He has further stated that even on the day when the statement was being given the respondent-Management is ready to take back the C.W.P.No.10179 of 2008 -3- workman on duty on the same terms and conditions on which he was working. This offer has not been accepted by the workman even during proceedings before the Labour Court which clearly shows that the workman is not interested in the job. That being the position, this would amount to abandonment of the job and would not be termed as termination, as has been tried to be projected by the workman. Since there is no termination of services of the workman, the question of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. The findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with as the same are based upon the pleadings and evidence produced by the respective parties before it. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, I dismiss the same. January 21, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No