G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P -9) whereby, the reference has been decided against the workman.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the workman should have been reinstated since the Labour Court has found that he had abandoned the job and thus only back wages should have been denied. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman was appointed as a Driver on 03.04.2005 and it is alleged that his services were terminated on 19.03.2008 when he was drawing salary of Rs. 4,500/ - per month. Accordingly, a demand notice dated 01.04.2008 was served upon the respondent -management alleging that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and that the provisions of Sections 25H, 25 -N and 25 -G of the Act had also been violated since juniors had been appointed.
(3.) ON the matter being referred to the Labour Court, in the written statement a specific plea was taken that he had absented on his own accord and he was asked to join duties vide letter dated 10.05.2008 sent by way of registered post and there was no dispute which could be referred for adjudication. The case of the management was that the workman started remaining absent from duty from 19.03.2008 onwards and his name was not on the rolls of the school due to the act of absence. Accordingly, it was averred that it was not a case of termination but was case of remaining absent from duty and provisions of Sections 25G, 25H and 25N of the Act would not be attracted. It is denied that Rajesh, junior was engaged.;