IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2136 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.4.2011. Dr.Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry …Petitioner Versus. Jai Ram and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Rohit Sharma with Sh. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 26.7.2008 whereby the Labour Court held the termination of the services of the workman as illegal and against the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court directed that the workman be reinstated with benefit of seniority and continuity in service alongwith back wages @ 50%. Against the aforesaid award, the University has filed the present petition. 2. The following reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Jai Ram, ex-daily wages beldar by the Registrar, Dr. 2 Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Distt. Solan H.P. w.e.f. 27.12.1998 on completion of 240 days continuous service without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry and without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of alleged abandonment, misconduct and misbehaviour and retaining juniors in service as alleged is legal and justified. If not, to what relief of consequential service benefits including re-instatement, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation, Shri Jai Ram is entitled?” 3. The case of the workman is that he was employed in the petitioner-University and had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year on 27.12.1998 when his services were terminated by an oral order without giving any reasons. The stand of the University is that the workman was initially engaged in the department of Tree Improvement and worked there till 31st August, 1998. According to the University prior to this on 8th July, 1998 the workman had been warned to perform his duties carefully and in proper manner and therefore, the workman of his own voluntarily abandoned the service of the University. It is further alleged by the University that thereafter the workman by giving false parentage and change of address got himself employed in another department of the University and worked there till December, 1998. The stand of the workman is that it was 3 the University who changed his department and he never applied to the Silviculture Department for reappointment. 4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and the University has not placed on record any material to show that after 31.8.1998 the workman ever applied afresh for a job. The University placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Head of Department of the University in which there appears to be some overwriting on the name of the father of the workman, which seems to have been corrected as Devi Ram instead of Devi Dass. There is no manner of doubt that father name of the respondent is actually Devi Dass, as is reflected in Ext.PW- 1/A. Whether the correction from Devi Ram to Devi Dass was made by the workman or by some official of the university is not clear. This Court in writ proceedings cannot reassess the evidence. This is the role of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and not of the writ Court. The Tribunal came to a finding that the workman worked for 240 days and his services have not been retrenched in accordance with law. 5. The main submission of the University is that on 31.8.1998 the workman voluntarily abandoned his job. This submission cannot be accepted because the workman worked 3 days in September 1998 till 21st December, 1998. Therefore, even according to the University the workman was working in another department of the University. It 4 would indeed be strange that a person would abandon his job in one department of the same employer and chose to join another department. Therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly rejected this contention of the University. 6. Lastly, Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the University, urges that the workman should not have been granted any back wages in view of the fact that he had not worked throughout this period. It has come in evidence of the workman himself that though he was not employed during this period but he was working in the fields, meaning thereby he was not totally without any earning. 7. Keeping all these factors in view the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the limited extent that till the announcement of the award i.e. 26.7.2008 the workman shall be entitled to 25% salary instead of 50%. However, on or w.e.f. 26.7.2008 the workman shall be entitled to full wages. The workman shall also be entitled to count this intervening period from 21.12.1998 till the date of reappointment for the purpose of seniority, etc. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 19th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.