C.W.P No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2009 Rulda Ram .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kaushish, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) C.M Nos.11754-55 of 2009. Applications are allowed. Exemption from filing certified copy of Annexure A-1 is granted and taken on record. C.W.P. No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) 1. The award that is challenged before this Court is the rejection of the workman's plea for reinstatement. The reference was sought on the alleged termination of service of the workman from 24.10.1994. The contention on behalf of the management was that the workman had actually abandoned his service and he had been gainfully employed in some other place. It was also brought out C.W.P No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) -2- through evidence that the workman had admitted to be working elsewhere at the relevant time when the workman claimed that he was terminated from service. The management also contended and it was accepted by the Labour Court that the Standing Orders themselves provided that if the workman had remained absent without leave beyond the leave period originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless he returned to duty within 10 days of the expiry of leave period and explained to the satisfaction of the manager his inability to return on the expiry of leave. 2. The management had established before the Labour Court through documentary evidence that notice had been sent by the management requiring the workman to rejoin duty (Ex.M-4) but the workman had not resumed duty or given any explanation. All these factors vindicated the stand of the management, as per the reasoning of the Labour Court that the workman had not been terminated from service by the management but the workman was guilty of voluntary abandonment from service. 3. It must be noticed in this case that it was clearly brought out through evidence that at the relevant time when the workman complained that he was terminated, he had actually been working elsewhere and that was gainful employment. The workman was again not free from all blame especially when a notice had been given to the workman to explain his absence or resume duty, he did not. Learned counsel appearing for the management refers to a decision in Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Sakattar Singh 2001(1) SCT 265 that holds that if C.W.P No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) -3- no explanation came from a workman for not returning to duty, rules of the principle of natural justice could not be examined in vacuum and a workman who stays on his own volition away from work could not insist that principles of natural justice had not been complied with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the rights of workman in a bank that dealt with a clause in Bipartite Settlement between the bank and its employees providing for automatic retirement of an employee absent from duty for 90 or more consecutive days beyond the leave granted. The judgment held on a factual consideration that where an employee was playing truant with the management and did not join duty in spite of an opportunity being given to him to explain and justify his conduct, he shall be treated as having abandoned service. The same point has also been projected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a slightly different situation where the enforceability of such a clause was put to test in Lakshmi Precision Screws v Ram Bhagat AIR 2002 SC 2914 The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that rules of natural justice have to be read into such a provision and even if a Standing Order did not contemplate an enquiry, a termination cannot result merely from absence without due sanction for leave. The learned counsel points out that the latter decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to be applied to a case of permanent employee where, when the rights of a workman have fructified and he enjoyed a security of tenure, the right cannot be whittled down by mere reference of Standing Order that provides for termination of service. His submission was to show that the present case dealt with the situation of a daily wager who had worked for a C.W.P No.10293 of 1988 (O&M) -4- period of three years and later abandoned service, may be, for green pastures but later decided on re-entry by making a demand for reinstatement. 4. The award of the Labour Court refusing reinstatement, under such circumstances, was fully justified. In the face of clear evidence that he had been employed elsewhere and he had not turned up for employment in spite of notice, the workman cannot obtain to himself even the benefit of compensation. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 23, 2009 Pankaj*