Vice Chancellor, Guru Jambeshwar University, Hissar vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hissar

K.K. Srivastava, J.—We have heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned award.

The respondent No. 2 Neki Ram was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in the Regional Centre of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, at Hissar w.e.f. 31.3.1993, The said Regional Centre was subsequently taken over on the establishment of Guru Jambheshwar University, which came into being w.e.f. 1.11.1995. Respondent No. 2 continued to work on daily wages basis under the petitioners. The services of the respondent No. 2 workman were terminated. He served a demand notice and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, which has by its award held that the termination of services of the workman were neither in order nor justified and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits and with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 1.8.1996. Copy of the impugned award is Annexure P9, dated 26.11.1999, which was published in the gazette on 18.2.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as a matter of fact the respondent/workman came under the employment of the petitioner upon formation of the petitioner/University and was treated as a fresh employee of the University. It was further contended that the respondent No, 2 was working on temporary muster roll basis w.e.f. 1.11.1995 upto only 16.2.1996 and he never completed 240 days work in the preceding months before 31.1.1996.

A careful perusal of the impugned award shows that the Labour Court after perusing the material produced before it held that the workman remained in the employment for a long period of more than three years from 6.1.1993 to 16.2.1996. The Labour Court has treated the period of service of the respondent/workman even before formation of the petitioner University as continuity of service. We are also of the considered view that since the petitioner-University allowed the workman to work under it and did not pass any fresh orders of appointment, the workman would be treated to be in service in continuity from the date of his initial appointment. Apart from it, the stand taken by the petitioners that the workman himself abandoned the job was negatived by the Labour Court and no infirmity can be found with the finding of the Labour Court. Dealing with the plea of the management, the Labour Court held in para 10 of the award, inter alia, as under:-

"-----If the petitioner had absented himself then there was no question of abandoning job. Absen teeism is misconduct and termination on this ground can only be after giving reasonable op- portunity of being heard. Failure on the part of the respondents to prove abandonment leads to the inference of termination." Resultantly, we find no infirmity in the impugned award. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed in limine

. 5. Petition dismissed.