IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 2201 of 2009 alongwith C.W.Ps. No. 2202, 2206, 2227, 2587 and 4427 of 2009. Decided on 18.06.2010. _________________________________________________________ 1. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Som Nath and another. …Respondents. 2. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Ram Lal and another. …Respondents. 3. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Ranjeet Singh and another. …Respondents. 4. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Jai Dutt and another. …Respondents. 5. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Sohan Lal and others. …Respondents. 6. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. …Petitioner. -Versus- Kamla Nand and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s)- Electricity Board. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate (in all the petitions) For private respondents : M/s. V.D. Khidta, R.K. Khidta, Rakesh Manta, Anuj Gupta, Rohit Sharma & P.P.Chauhan, Advocates (in all the petitions). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The employer, i.e., Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board has assailed the awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 5.3.2009, 19.11.2008, 5.3.2009, 31.3.2009, 23.04.2009 and 31.8.2009. 3. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen” for convenience sake) were engaged by the employer on daily wage basis. They were retrenched. Thereafter, they raised demand notice. After the failure of conciliation proceedings, references were made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Shimla. The workmen filed claim petitions before the learned Labour Court. The workmen pleaded before the learned Labour Court that their retrenchment was void abinitio since they had completed 240 days preceding their retrenchment in a block of 12 calendar months. The employer also filed replies to the claim petitions. It was, interalia, pleaded therein that the workmen had not completed 240 days and, thus, their retrenchment was in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners-Electricity Board has argued that the services of the workmen were never retrenched, however, they abandoned their jobs. Alternatively, he has argued that the workmen had not completed 240 days preceding their retrenchment in a block of 12 calendar months. 5. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the evidence, oral as well as documentary led by the workmen and the Management, came to the conclusion that the workmen had completed 240 days preceding their retrenchment. 6. We have gone through the awards passed by the learned Labour Court. 7. The finding that the workmen had completed 240 days has been recorded correctly by appreciating the evidence led by the parties. Since the workmen had completed 240 days preceding their retrenchment, notices were required to be issued to them under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer/Management has not placed any tangible material on record to prove that Section 25-F of the Act was complied with. The learned Labour Court has also recorded a finding that the persons junior to the workmen had been retained and fresh hands were also appointed. The learned Court ordered reinstatement of the workmen alongwith seniority and continuity, however, the back wages were denied. 8. Now, we will advert to the submission made by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners-Board that the workmen had abandoned their jobs. The Board had not placed any tangible evidence on record to suggest, even remotely that the workmen had abandoned their jobs. Whether there is voluntary abandonment of service or not, is the question of fact and is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.T. Lad and others versus Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd., AIR 1979 Supreme Court 582 have held as under: “6. From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. v. Venkatiah (1964) 4 SCR 265: (AIR 1964 SC 1272), it was observed by this Court that under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus whether there has been abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case.” 10. We are hence of the considered view that the awards passed by the learned Labour Court are in accordance with law and need not be interfered. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor procedural irregularity in the awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court. 11. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 18, 2010. (bhupender)