IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20415 of 2009 Date of decision: 13.01.2010 Rotary Public School, Baradri Chowk, Sector-19, Faridabad ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the award dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Faridabad-respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-3). Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a specific stand taken by the Management in the written statement that the services of respondent No. 2-workman were never terminated by the petitioner- Management and the workman had himself abandoned the job. The Management was ready and willing to take him back even at that stage and CWP No. 20415 of 2009 -2- the workman having not exercised that option, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On this very basis, he submits that the grant of full back wages to the workman-respondent No. 2 is not justified. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, 1993 (4) SCT 521 as also a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Freeze King Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2002 (1) SCT 394. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the award leaves no manner of doubt that the contention, as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the abandonment of the service by respondent No. 2-workman, has not been accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that no evidence has been produced in support of the contention with regard to the abandonment of the job by the workman. It is an admitted position in the written statement that immediately on the termination of the service of the workman on 15.09.2001, a letter dated 17.09.2001 was specifically addressed by the workman to the petitioner-Management stating therein his wrongful termination from service and non-grant of over-time. This letter is admitted to have been received by the Management. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that no response to the said letter was sent by the Management as there is no document on record to state so. The only question, therefore, now remains to be looked into as to whether respondent No. 2-workman was entitled to full back wages or not. A perusal of the award clearly indicates that the service of the workman was terminated without following the provisions, as contained CWP No. 20415 of 2009 -3- under the Industrial Disputes Act. There is nothing on the record to state that the workman has been gainfully employed nor is it the stand of the Management that he had been gainfully employed for the period he had remained out of service. In the absence of any evidence on record or the statement with regard to this fact, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. As a matter of fact, it has come on record that the workman has, in his statement, stated that he has not been gainfully employed for the said period. In view of the above position, the judgments, which have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 13, 2010 pj