IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20926 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 11, 2011. Kallan Singh .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, 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-workman was employed by respondent No.2- industry on 1.1.1992. He was arrested in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC registered on 19.11.1997 which caused his absence from duty. The management terminated his services and sent a notice asking him to collect the retrenchment compensation. The petitioner was admittedly convicted in the afore- mentioned criminal case under Section 307 IPC though his appeal is pending before the High Court. After his release on bail etc., the petitioner raised an 'industrial dispute' against retrenchment which has been turned down by the Labour Court vide award dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) CWP No.20926 of 2011 [2] after holding that the management was justified in retrenching the petitioner as he had abandoned the employment, may be due to his arrest/ conviction in the criminal case. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any fault with the reasons given by the Labour Court. The fact that the petitioner was in jail and consequently absent from duty, in a way leads to abandonment of employment, as far as the management is concerned. It accordingly decided to terminate the services of petitioner after paying retrenchment compensation. The impugned award thus calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction except to observe that whatever amount of retrenchment compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to, deserves to be paid to him for which he may approach the local authorities under the Labour Law. With the observation afore-mentioned, the writ petition is disposed of. November 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE