C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.5148 of 2009 in C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 26.03.2009 Balwan Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.P.K.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No.2 and 4. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) C.M.No.5148 of 2009 C.M.is allowed as prayed for. Replication is taken on record. Main Case. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner-workman for a minor punishment whereas his services have been terminated without holding an enquiry. He contends that the workman was appointed initially for a period of three C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 -2- months but thereafter he has been continuing in service till the date of his termination i.e. 5.6.1998. He contends that the charge-sheet wherein it has been asserted that the workman is absenting from duty from 1.10.1997 to 25.12.1997 is not correct as the workman was all through available with the Management at Ambala, and therefore, the said charge-sheet is not in consonance with the records. He further submits that even if the services of the petitioner-workman had to be dispensed with, then also, he is entitled to the compensation as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Wazir Singh vs. Managing Director of Tarn Taran Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Amritsar and another, 2001(Labour and Industrial Cases) 1227, to contend that when no notice or retrenchment compensation is given, the plea of appointment being for a fixed period, came to an end by afflux of time. Petitioner having been allowed to continue beyond the said period and complete 240 days of service, the termination would not be valid and he would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the appointment of the workman was on purely contractual basis and the said contract was being renewed from time to time. The workman absented himself from 1.10.1997 till 25.12.1997 and thereafter from 2.1.1998 to 4.6.1998. He contends that since the workman was purely on contractual basis and he had been absenting himself from service, he was not entitled to any compensation under the Act. He further contends that the contract has been terminated on account of absence of the workman from duty, which he C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 -3- has failed to justify either by showing that he was, as a matter of fact, not absent from duty nor has he put-forth any justification for his non- attendance of his work. He further contends that despite the charge sheet having been issued to him which has been duly served on him, the workman has failed to respond thereto either by submitting a written reply or putting forth any explanation whatsoever with regard to non-filing of the reply. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. A perusal of the award would show that the charge sheet Exhibit M-3 was issued to the workman which was received by him personally under his own signatures on 12.12.1997. It is not in dispute that the workman did not submit any reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, registered A.D. Letter dated 5.2.1998 Exhibit M-8 was issued to the workman wherein it was specifically stated that he ( workman ) had been absenting himself from duty with effect from 1.10.1997 charge sheet was received by the workman on 12.12.1997 asking him to show cause as to why his contract be not terminated as he is continuing to be absent from duty and further has not submitted any reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, a registered letter dated 20.3.1998 was sent to the petitioner at his home address which was received back unserved with the report that the workman was not available despite visiting his house on 25.3.1998 to 31.3.1998. Yet another opportunity was given to the workman to respond when a notice was published in the newspaper in Dainik Chetna intimating him that he had remained absent from duty with effect from 1.10.1997 to 25.12.1997 which was received back unserved due to his non-availability. In the said notice also, the workman was called upon to join back for duty within 15 days from the date of publication of the C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 -4- notice. Still, the workman did not respond to this notice. Balwan Singh-workman, when appeared before the Labour Court as WW-1, did not give any explanation whatsoever as to why he had not responded to the charge sheet nor has he has put forth any explanation with regard to his absence from duty. No evidence whatsoever had been placed on record before the Labour Court either showing his presence, as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner before this Court nor had any explanation been given for his absence. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances and the pleadings as well as the evidence, the only conclusion was that the workman had willfully and unintentionally remained absent from duty for the period in question and thereafter. It is not in dispute that had the petitioner-workman worked with the respondents, as is being asserted by his counsel now before this Court. The petitioner-workman had an option to move an appropriate application before the Labour Court calling for the records of his place of posting and work, which would have proved beyond doubt the assertion as has been put- forth by his counsel. Having failed to do so, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner being without any basis or evidence on record cannot be accepted. The workman having remained absent from duty, the Management was left with no other option but to terminate the contract which according to the petitioner was not signed by him but the documents which have been placed on record clearly show that the contractual appointment had to come to an end on that basis. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner-workman that the charge sheet was issued under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 C.W.P.No.11709 of 2008 -5- whereas the punishment meted out to the workman is a major punishment which would be covered under Rule 7 of the above-said Rules cannot be accepted for the reason that the workman was appointed on purely contractual basis which is evident from the documents placed on record by the Management. The option which has been exercised by the Management is the termination of the contract, which right it had under the contract itself. That being so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. March 26, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No