CWP No.18683 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18683 of 2005 Date of Decision: March 11, 2008 M.L. Huria ....Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineeer, CHM-II, Tau Devi Lal Thermal Power Station- Panipat and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri H.L. Huria, petitioner in person. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to direct the respondents to pay the full back wages for the period 2.3.2005 till the petitioner rejoined his duties and the period in question be treated as the duty period. The petitioner, was working as welder since December, 1979 at Tau Devi Lal Thermal Power Station, Panipat. He was transferred in the year 2004. The petitioner resisted such transfer by making a representation (Annexure P.1) on 25.2.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier he filed a writ petition in which notice of motion was issued and on account of such notice of motion, the respondents took action against the petitioner to CWP No.18683 of 2005 (2) transfer him and marked him absent as well. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 22.12.2004. The petitioner joined against vacant post of operator. The operators are to be put in parallel with contracting agency so that these officials may get gainful knowledge before taking over the plant from the contracting agency. The operation and maintenance of CHP-III remained with the contracting agency upto June, 2005 and available staff including the petitioner was put in parallel duty with contractor's staff over operating the plant. There was no change in the salary and allowances and other service conditions of the official. It has been pointed out that the petitioner did not work punctually for the period 1.1.2005 to 2.3.2005 but absented from duty and never responded to several letters/registered letters for resuming his duties. A notice dated 25.4.2005 was served upon the petitioner for resuming duties. It has further been pointed out that the training job assigned to the petitioner was much easier than the job of Welder and that the petitioner was not subjected to any financial loss. However, the petitioner failed to join duties and consequently, he remained absent from 2.3.2005 till the date of his retirement. On 22.1.2008, Shri Narender Hooda, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions in respect of the period of absence to be treated as leave of the kind due. During the Course of hearing of the writ petition on 4.3.2008, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents have decided to treat the period of absence from duties as leave of the kind due. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked from 2.3.2005 till CWP No.18683 of 2005 (3) his retirement. As per the petitioner, he was transferred to the project where there was no work for the Welder, whereas as per the respondents, the petitioner was to work in parallel with the contracting agency so as to gain experience over the nature of the work expected to be carried out by the petitioner and other similarly situated employees after the handing over of the plant. Having heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not find that the petitioner is entitled to any order from this Court in respect of payment of his salary. It is the admitted case that the petitioner has not worked from 2.3.2005 till his retirement. As per the petitioner, he was ready to work but the respondents did not give him work. However, on the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that inspite of repeated notices sent to the petitioner under registered post, he did not join the duties and therefore, not entitled to any wages. Since there is a dispute on facts, we do not find that any direction can be issued in the present writ petition for payment of wages. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE March 11, 2008 ds