IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.529 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 7.1.2010 Pyare Lal. -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- None for the appellant. Ms. Manisha Sahota, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against the award of the Labour Court. 2. The appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging wrongful termination of his services. The same was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. Case of the appellant was that he worked from 12.12.1997 to 31.8.1999 and his services were terminated on 1.9.1999 without following due procedure of law. The claim was contested by the management by submitting that the workman abandoned the service and failed to join inspite of LPA No.529 of 2009 being required to do so. It was also submitted that the workman worked on short term contract basis and that the Thermal Power Station where the workman was employed itself was closed. Since the workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding year, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) were not attracted. 3. The Labour Court held that the workman had abandoned the job and inspite of opportunity, he failed to report for work. Reference was made to statement of MW-1 Sanjay Kumar and letter Ex.MW-1/3 corroborated by Ex.MW-1/1. It was held that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act. 4. The writ petition of the workman was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the findings of the Labour Court. 5. Since there is delay in filing the appeal, notice was issued for condonation of delay after noticing the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the workman had worked for more than 240 days. 6. None appeared for the appellants on the last date. Even today, none appears for the appellant. 7. We find that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court which has been affirmed by learned Single Judge that it was a case of abandonment of services by the workman himself and not a case of termination by the management. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. In such a situation, 2 LPA No.529 of 2009 Section 25-F of the Act is not attracted even if the workman had rendered 240 days of service, as claimed. 7. In view of above factual position, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 8. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 07, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3