Haryana State Electricity Board and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Augustine George Masih, J.—In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 7.10.1993 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the services of the workman were never terminated. He contends that after the workman suffered an injury during service due to an accident, he was directed to produce a medical fitness certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Ambala. He did produce a certificate of medical fitness from Ambala but did not resume his duties after the accident. It is the stand of the Management that the workman abandoned the job. Counsel, therefore, contends that since there was no termination of services of the workman and rather the workman had himself abandoned the job, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The factual position in the present case is that the workman joined in December, 1979 as Assistant Lineman with the petitioner-Board. He met with an accident on 25.7.1983 while on duty because of which, he had made a claim for grant of compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The said claim was granted in his favour and the payments were also made by the Management. The workman did submit his medical certificate as required by the petitioner-Board but failed to join the duties as has been asserted by the Management. The assertion which has been put-forth by the Management, was required to be proved and substantiated by the Management itself. Nothing has been brought on record which would show that indeed any communication was sent to the workman to join service. It is an admitted position that neither show cause notice, nor any charge-sheet nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. This obviously is correct in the light of the stand taken by the Management as the services of the workman were never terminated. The onus of proving the stand of abandonment of job by the workman was on the Management which it has desperately failed to prove. That being so, the natural consequence thereof is that the stand of the workman that his services were terminated by the Management and he was not allowed to continue with his job is to be accepted. Nothing has been produced on record which would justify or show that the workman was unable to perform the light duties as has been asserted by him in his statement before the Labour Court. It has also come on record that the workman had himself, in his statement before the Labour Court on 7.9.1993, given up his claim for back wages and accordingly, he was not granted any back-wages. In the totality of the circumstances of the present case and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be either perverse or not in consonance with the pleadings and evidence led by the parties.

No illegality, therefore, has been committed by the Labour Court while passing its award dated 7.10.1993 (Annexure P-1) which would call for interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.