ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the award dated June 12, 2006, copy Annexure P-3, impugned before us.
(2.) It is evident from record that the petitioner worked as a driver on official Ambassador Car No. HR-20-0018. A report was made by the Senior Mechanical Engineer, Minister's Car Section, Haryana, Chandigarh in respect of said car. In that report, it was mentioned that the said car had captured rust on its body due to non-washing from time to time and that the oil in the engine was even below the specified level with tampering in the speedometer. On account of his said acts of omission and commissjon with the working and maintenance of the said car, which was in his exclusive possession, a notice was served upon the petitioner. A bare perusal of impugned award also shows that instead of replying the said notice, the petitioner refused to accept the same and thereafter, in a derogatory way, threw the keys of the car on the table of office Superintendent and left the office on March 5, 2002. Resultantly, respondent No. 1 recommended for termination of the services of the petitioner, who had voluntarily abandoned the job and the competent authority ultimately, terminated the services of the petitioner. Admittedly, respondent No. 1, as per the need of work appointed another driver in place of the petitioner.
(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner after a lapse of about nine months i.e. on December 7, 2002 served the demand notice and thereby questioned the action of respondent in terminating his services on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 25-F to 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act). On the other hand, the respondent took the stand that the petitioner had himself abandoned the job, which resulted into termination of his services. The question whether an employee has abandoned his service or not is a question which is required to be resolved in light of facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula in that regard. In this case, in the event of alleged illegal termination of his service, it was expected from the petitioner to redress his grievance to the higher authorities or the concerned Labour department immediately and would not have remained mum for about nine months when he raised the demand on December 7, 2002. It can also not be forgotten that discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer is sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline, it is not open to the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the action taken by the employer against the erring employee. The Labour Court considering all these aspects, up-held the plea of abandonment raised by the respondent and held that though the workman had to his credit service of 240 days when his services were terminated but since he himself had abandoned the job in the most arrogant and undisciplined manner, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. Apart thereto the Labour Court in para 17 of the impugned award expressed his indecency towards the said attitude of the petitioner in the following words: "17. Before parting with this judgment, this Court also has the least hesitation to observe that the present petitioner-workman has filed the present petition just as an abuse of process of the law not only by concealing the true & material facts from this Court of law but also by willfully and intentionally taking up the false and frivolous pleas in order to seek an unwarranted relief by using this Court as a tool/toy in his hands to play with and that in the process he has tried to create a smoke-screen before the eyes of this Court of law. This attitude of the petitioner-workman is certainly deplorable and as such is hereby condemned by this Court in the strongest possible words.";