IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17311 of 2010 Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Irrigation Works, Punjab Shahpurkandi, Distt.Gurdaspur & another Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur & another Present: Ms.Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.2-workman was appointed as Beldar on 13.11.1985 at Ranjit Sagar Dam Project on work-charge basis. He absented himself w.e.f. 8.1.1998 and remained absent till 25.4.2002. Despite numerous letters and notices, he did not come to join the duties. Ultimately, he was charge-sheeted and faced enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, deputed to go into the charges. On the basis of enquiry report, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 30.9.2002 w.e.f. 8.1.1998. The respondent-workman accordingly raised a demand notice, which was referred to adjudication before the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The Labour Court has up-held the order of termination but has further held that the petitioners could not have terminated the services of the respondent- workman with effect from the retrospective date. No doubt, the respondent-workman had continued to remain absent w.e.f. 8.1.1998 till he re-joined and faced this enquiry. The order of termination is fully justified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The proper enquiry was held and thereafter the respondent-workman was dismissed. The Labour Court has also up-held the termination of the respondent-workman, but, however, has found that the action of the petitioners in dismissing him with effect from retrospective date is not justified. Civil Writ Petition No.17311 of 2010 : 2 : Accordingly, the termination has been held to be effective with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 30.9.2002, which will not make any substantial difference to the outcome of the case in any manner. While holding so, the respondent-workman has not been held entitled to any wages and rightly so. Since the respondent-workman had remained absent from 1998 to 2002, he certainly would not be entitled to any wages. It is only the effect of the termination, which will have to be from the date of the order and not from any date prior thereto. The Labour Court has rightly interfered in that part of the order. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. September 24, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE