CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13574 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13574 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12 , 2010 The Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another .....Petitioners VERSUS Surjit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, along with Superintendent Engineer, has filed this writ petition to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, dated 10.11.2008, whereby the respondent-workman had been allowed subsistence allowance from 26.2.1993 to 12.12.1995. The respondent-workman had allegedly remained absent from duty from 26.2.1993. He was sent letter/notice, but despite that he did not join duty nor gave any reply and continued to remain absent. On 27.8.1993, he was charge-sheeted, but he did not file any reply. Departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13574 of 2009 -2- on 12.12.1995 on the basis of finding returned by the inquiry officer. The respondent-workman sought reference of the dispute and the Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to Labour Court, Patiala on 2.6.1998. The Labour Court has dismissed the reference, but has allowed the subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman from 26.2.1993 to 12.12.1995. The termination of the respondent- workman though was from 12.12.1995, but was given effect from 26.2.1993. The Labour Court has corrected the same by observing that the order of termination could not have been given retrospective effect. Labour Court is legally justified in taking this view. Once the respondent-workman was terminated w.e.f 12.12.1995, the order could not have been passed with retrospective effect though he had been absenting from 26.2.1993. The Labour Court, however, is not justified in holding that the respondent-workman is entitled to get subsistence allowance for a period from 26.2.1993 to 12.12.1995. Firstly, the respondent-workman was not placed under suspension. Even if it be so, the respondent-workman can not be held entitled to any payment for the period he had remained absent. The prayer made in writ petition deserves to be allowed. The direction issued by the Labour Court to allow subsistence allowance from 26.2.1993 to 12.12.1995, is set aside. The remaining part of the award passed by the Labour Court is upheld. October 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE