IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12559 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 20, 2011. Satish Kumar .....Petitioner versus Government of India and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs.K.K.Kahlon, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner has not been referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by the appropriate Government, namely, the Union of India, on the plea that the petitioner 'stopped reporting for work at his own'. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot sustain in law. The question as to whether the petitioner abandoned the employment or he was wrongfully retrenched, falls within the adjudicatory domain of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the appropriate Government CWP No.12559 of 2010 [2] cannot usurp that jurisdiction. For the reason afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and respondent No.1 is directed to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication. It is clarified that the reference order may contain the question as to whether the petitioner himself abandoned the employment or was retrenched unlawfully and the Labour Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. Dasti. December 20, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE