C.W.P No.8733 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.8733 of 1993 Date of Decision: 22.07.2009 Mohinder Pal .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the finding of the Labour Court that the workman, who claimed to have been wrongfully terminated could not have any relief before the Court since he had voluntarily abandoned his services and the termination, which was ultimately effected by the management was unassailable. 2. The contention of the workman was that he had been working as a Rikshaw Puller with the Punjab Film and News Corporation Limited that operated through the Punjab Theatre Bhawanigarh. According to him, he had been working for about 10 years and his services were terminated without any notice, charge- sheet, enquiry or compensation. The contention on behalf of the management was that even prior to the raising of the industrial C.W.P No.8733 of 1993 -2- dispute, there had been notices sent by the Corporation referring to the fact that he had absented himself from duty from 01.05.1987 and since he had not reported for duty, he was deemed to have abandoned duty w.e.f. 01.05.1987 and treated as such. The Labour Court had reasoned that to the notices sent by the management, there had not even been replies on the part of workman and therefore, it should only be taken that workman had voluntarily abandoned the service. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even in a case where there had been any absence from duty, there cannot be an assumption that a workman had voluntarily abandoned the service and the Courts have held even if Standing Orders provided for automatic termination, rules of natural justice must be read into such Standing Orders as held in Lakshmi Precision Screws v Ram Bhagat AIR 2002 SC 2914 and a decision taken without any enquiry would be bad in law (see Vivekanand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. (2005) 5 SCC 337. Learned counsel also submitted that the Labour Court's finding that there had been no responses at all for the letters issued by the management was clearly wrong, even the notice issued on 10.03.1988 and relied on by the management makes reference to the replies of the workman to the notices. The notice dated 10.03.1988 was a case where the management was expressing that it was not satisfied to the reasons given in the reply. The problem for the workman was only that he had not put the copies of the reply as evidence. Under normal circumstances, in the absence of a document, the inference made by the Labour Court could have been appropriate but not in a case where there is even a reference about the C.W.P No.8733 of 1993 -3- reply in the management's notice. It cannot be again assumed that a simple Rikshaw Puller would have known the niceties of keeping copies of the replies when he was responding to a notice from the management. Indeed, even the tenor of the notices by the management in a high flown foreign language (English) seems to be unfortunate enough and shows a deliberate distancing of communication tool from their own workman, who did not report for duty. A termination could not have been effected without appropriate enquiry or giving a reasonable opportunity to the workman to explain why he could not rejoin. Such a reasonable opportunity should precede some form of enquiry which admittedly had never been undertaken. 4. If the termination was bad, it would be eminently a case where the workman should be declared entitled to reinstatement in the absence of special circumstances to deny such a right. The termination of service without notice under Section 25-F could only be seen as illegal. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was a Rikshaw Puller, it cannot ever be imagined that such a person would have lost all means of livelihood. One can take notice of the fact that a Rikshaw Puller is invariably self-employed and if he required any funding at all, it would be for the simple contrivance of rikshaw that should have assured him of his means to his livelihood. It is admitted even by the petitioner that the Corporation has been wound up and later the workers had been absorbed in the various departments of Punjab Government. The reinstatement to a person in the changed circumstances and for the nature of work which C.W.P No.8733 of 1993 -4- he was doing may not be worthwhile and the interest of justice shall be best served if in lieu of reinstatement, he is granted compensation which, under the circumstances, estimated at Rs.75,000/-. 5. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and I direct that the respondents shall pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and for the illegal termination of services that had been visited on the workmen. The amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount shall bear simple interest @7.5% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 22, 2009 Pankaj*