LPA No. 795 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 795 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 15 .7.2010 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation ... Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Panipat ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 26.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 12393 of 2003. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that a settlement had been reached between the management and the workman on 15.7.1996 and the workman- respondent had joined duty on 16.7.1996. It has been found that on account of late coming of the workman, two notices were issued on 25.7.1996 and 2.8.1996 and the services of the workman were terminated on the ground that the workman- respondent had voluntarily abandoned the duty. The learned Single Judge has found that no case of abandonment is made out from the conduct alleged to have been exhibited by the workman- respondent because in the notices dated 25.7.1996 and 2.8.1996, the appellant- management has merely indicated late coming of the workman. LPA No. 795 of 2010 2 Accordingly, the learned Single Judge rejected the theory of voluntary abandonment of service by the workman and termination on that basis. As a consequence, he upheld the award of the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination and also upheld the relief of reinstatement but modified the back wages restricting the same to 50%. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that no interference in the judgement of the learned Single Judge is possible because voluntary abandonment of service necessarily involves the element of absence from duty for a long period resulting in an inference of abandonment of service. In the present case, the workman has merely come late by half an hour which cannot constitute basis to conclude that the workman has abandoned the service. The findings are unexceptionable and the appeal does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 15.7.2010 Judge okg