C.W.P. No.7041 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.7041 of 2009(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 10.1.2011 Daljit Singh PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar & another RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri S.L.Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, states that he is not interested in accepting the offer of the Management of being reinstated into service without any back wages. He further states that the matter may be decided on merits. The petitioner has filed the instant petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned C.W.P. No.7041 of 2009 -2- award Annexure P-1. The petitioner being workman had raised an industrial dispute and sought a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court to whom the reference was made, framed the following issue :- “Whether termination of the service of Shri Daljit Singh, workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation he is entitled?” The plea of the petitioner was that he had worked as Conductor for 9 years, but was not permitted to join the service on 13.2.1997 verbally and that his services were terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason. He pleaded that he was getting salary of Rs.1650/- per month and was not paid salary from 1.2.1997 to 12.2.1997. The Management refuted the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that it is a case of abandonment of service and not of termination. The following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the reference is not maintainable? (2) Whether the workman left the job of his own accord after full and final settlement? (3) Whether the termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order? (4) Relief? The petitioner appeared as his own witness and also examined one Jagdeep Singh WW-3 besides producing documents on record Exs.W4 to W7. The Tribunal examined the evidence before it and concluded that the petitioner had abandoned his services and therefore, declined the reference, which has resulted in the filing of the instant writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that C.W.P. No.7041 of 2009 -3- Jagdeep Singh who was examined as WW-3, was the Secretary of the respondent and he was merely summoned for producing the record and, therefore, he being a witness of the Management, was not expected to support the case of the petitioner and the Tribunal by placing reliance on his testimony, has committed a grave error. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that it is a clear case of abandonment of service which is evident from the statement of WW-3 and even if this statement is to be ignored, then also, ever since 1997, when the conciliation proceedings took place, the petitioner was asked to join the services, which he refused to do and during the proceedings before the Labour Court also, an offer was made to the petitioner to join the service, which offer was again refused by him. Consequently, it is evident that the petitioner was not really interested in joining the services and the dispute has been raised by him on the extraneous reasons. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. Petitioner's own claim which he has raised by way of a demand notice and per the case set up before the Labour Court, was that he was refused service on 13.2.1997 and not paid wages from 1.2.1997 to 12.2.1997. The reconciliation proceedings took place in 1997 at the nearest point of time and before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner himself admitted that he had refused to join duty on an offer being made by the respondents. In 2008 when the matter was being considered by the Labour Court, the respondent/Management once again made an offer to the petitioner to join service without any pre-condition, which offer was again refused by the petitioner. Before this Court, when the proceedings were initiated, the petitioner initially made a statement on 1.4.2010 that he is willing to join the service of the respondent and is willing to forego his backwages in the eventuality of respondents granting him reinstatement. But then C.W.P. No.7041 of 2009 -4- on 1.9.2010, he retracted from his earlier stand to say that in case 50% back wages are given to him along with the reinstatement, he is willing to consider the offer. Today, when the matter was being argued, the petitioner was once again given the option by the learned counsel for the respondents that they are still willing to take him back into service, which was again spurned by the petitioner. It is thus, evident that ever since 1997, it is the petitioner who has refused the offer of the respondent/Management. It is clear that petitioner is not really interested in working with the respondents. In so far as the question of termination of services of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence from where it can be inferred that his services were terminated. Rather, the whole sequence of events as detailed above, leads to a strong inference that it is the petitioner who had abandoned the services and has repeatedly refused the offer of the Management ever since 1997 when the dispute began. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned award and the petition being without any merit, is dismissed. ( MAHESH GROVER ) January 10, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO