- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P4), whereby the Labour Court, Panipat had dismissed the reference filed by the petitioner-workman. The second relief claimed is for issuance of direction for reinstatement with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits including back wages with interest @ 18% per annum. A perusal of the record of the Labour Court, which has been received, would go on to show that in the demand notice, the case of the workman was that he was working with the respondent-Management, namely, M/s Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited, Sonepat since 01.07.1974 and had not been allowed to enter in the factory from 19.09.2003, without any reason. An application had been given to the Labour Inspector, Sonepat, but nothing came out of it and thereafter, the demand notice dated 06.11.2003 (Annexure P1) was presented for taking him back in service.
(2.) On the statement of the workman that the demand notice be treated as claim statement, written statement was filed wherein it was admitted that the workman worked from 01.07.1974 and was drawing salary of Rs. 2794/- per month. The plea was taken that the workman was absenting from duty and chargesheet dated 29.09.2003 and a reminder dated 12.11.2003 had been issued to him. The past record of the applicant revealed that there were various reports of misconduct and that he had tendered apologies and the Management, taking a lenient view, had not imposed severe punishment and had given him a chance to improve. He had not submitted any response to the chargesheet nor reported for duty and there was no termination of service. The demand notice was received through the letter of the Labour Officer dated 12.11.2003 and a meeting was fixed on 21.11.2003. The applicant had again been asked to report for duty but he had failed to report for duty and accordingly, it was pleaded that the reference had been made wrongly as no cause of action accrued to the workman.
(3.) The Labour Court, after taking into account all the documents, namely, the chargesheet dated 29.09.2003 (Exhibit WW2/1) and the reminder dated 12.11.2003 (Exhibit WW2/2), came to the conclusion that the respondent- Management had not terminated the services of the workman and that he had himself absented from duty and had abandoned the job. It was, accordingly, held that he cannot be granted any benefit or protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), in such circumstances and accordingly, the reference was declined, as noticed above, which is now, subject matter of challenge.;