LPA No.154 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.154 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: May 8, 2009 ISHWAR SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. C.B. GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court dated 16-3-2001 vide which Civil Writ Petition No.3409 of 1997 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The case of the appellant is that while he was posted in the Respondent-Mill as a Cane Surveyor, he was served with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty wilfully. He furnished his reply to the charge sheet but the same was found unsatisfactory by the Management of the Mill. Thereafter the Management wrote letters asking him to join but he expressed his inability to do so vide his letter dated 21-6-1993. Thereafter a final notice was served upon him, followed by his termination from service. No one has caused appearance on behalf of the appellant to assist this court and so therefore the present appeal is being heard ex-parte. The appellant was served with a charge sheet dated 12-5-1993 LPA No.154 of 2003 -2- for remaining absent from duty for 4 months and 12 days. He replied to the same but his reply was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter letters Exhibit W-3 & W-5 were served by the Management upon the appellant requesting him to join duty but he failed to do so. The Management then sent some Senior officials namely the Security Officer alongwith Deputy Cane Superintendent and the Cane Supervisor to the appellant’s village in order to find out the real truth on 5-7-1993. The appellant was found present there and he gave in writing Exhibit M-1 that he will join his duty tomorrow i.e. on 6-7-1993 as he was busy in Kalka in connection with elections of Sh. Tajinder Pal Mann. Despite issuance of the aforesaid letter written by the appellant assuring the Management that he will join his duty, he failed to do so which led to issuance of show cause notice upon him to which he turned his deaf ears leaving the Management with no option else to terminate his services on account of his absence from duty for 4 months and 12 days, for reasons which the appellant failed to disclose. The termination order was assailed by the appellant in a reference before the learned Tribunal Panipat wherein the statement of the appellant was recorded on 6-12-1995 and he closed his evidence thereafter. On 10-1-1996, when the Management closed its evidence, no request was made by the appellant-workman for leading more evidence and the learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence and material brought on record pertaining to the case, dismissed the reference of the workman vide award dated 7-5-1996. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the workman filed Civil Writ Petition No.3409 of 1997 before this Court. The learned Single Judge after thoughtful appraisal of the LPA No.154 of 2003 -3- record pertaining to the case and award dated 7-5-1996 dismissed the writ petition and claim arising therefrom of the appellant holding that the workman had been making excuses to attend the duty on account of death of his relative whose name and date of death he failed to disclose. His wilful disobedience is also patent on record on perusal of writing exhibit M-1 wherein he stated to the team of officials visiting his village that he was busy in the elections of Sh. Tajinder Pal Mann at Kalka. His conflicting stand with regard to absent from duty apparently shows that the appellant- workman was not interested in reporting for duty but rather he made lame excuses to shield his unauthorized absence. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant-workman clearly shows that he was not interested to work with the respondent-Mill and his absence from duty for such a long period without any plausible explanation coming forth from him called for his dooms day leading to his termination from service vide order dated 15-9-1993. The learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 Sh. C.B. Goel while referring to the written statement has argued that from the very beginning the appellant-workman was a dishonest and a insincere employee as earlier also he indulged in mis-appropriation/embezzlement of the funds of the Mill and had also been cheating the cane growers. Even a letter dated 4-7-1972 regarding his unauthorised absence from duty was served upon him and as a consequence thereof, his name was struck off from the rolls of the Mill. Thereafter the appellant was re-instated back into service without any wages for the period he remained absent, by the order of the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Panipat. That only six months had elapsed since his reinstatement into service, the appellant again absented from duty w.e.f. LPA No.154 of 2003 -4- 5.7.1972 but was let off the hook by the Management with a warning only. Thereafter he again absented from duty w.e.f.1-8-1983 to 8-9-1983 but was again shown leniency by the Management. It has been further argued by the counsel for Respondent no.2 that prior to the present charge sheet, the appellant-workman was charge sheeted twice before on charges of embezzlement and unauthorized absence for which not only his name was struck off from the rolls but he was also directed to make good the loss suffered by the Mill on account of his embezzlement. In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 and perused the record pertaining to the case and are of the view that no leniency can be shown to the appellant for remaining absent from duty repeatedly on numerous occasions without any plausible reasons and answerability to the Management. In present case the appellant remained absent from duty for 4 months and 12 days for which a charge sheet was served upon him on 12-5- 1993. He filed a reply to the same dated 17-5-1993 which did not find favour with the management being unsatisfactory. Thereafter Letters Exhibit W-3 & W-5 were written by the Management to the appellant requesting him to join duty but the same failed to tinkle his ears. Not only this, even the Management sent Senior Officials to his village on 5-7-1993 asking him to join his duty but there also he succeeded in putting them off on allurement and assurance that he would join his duty tomorrow i.e. on 6.7.1993. That having failed to honour his assurance, the Management was left with no option else to serve him with a show cause notice with regard to LPA No.154 of 2003 -5- termination of his services but even the said show cause notice failed to have any impact upon him. Left with no choice, the services of the appellant were terminated by the Management of the Respondent-Mill vide order dated 15-9-1993. That no latitude can be shown to such workman who do not intend to work even on repeated request made by the Management to do so but rather he befooled the Management with his absurd and lame excuses. Such a insincere and dishonest workman is deadwood in any Management who rather than being a help to the Management is a burden not only upon them but also on the State exchequer. In view of what has been observed hereinabove, we while upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.3.2001, dismiss the present appeal of the workman-appellant with no order as to costs. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 8, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE