P.B.BAJANTHRI, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Labour Court dated 25.4.2013. The respondent joined petitioner's company as a Helper on 10.1.1994 and he has earned promotion to the cadre of Welder. While working as such, there was a scuffle between the first respondent and the staff of the petitioner-Management in particularly, Karambir, Driver. There was physical abuse against the respondent-workman which was stated to be compromised later on followed by order of oral termination on 27.5.2005. The respondent-workman raised demand notice on 28.6.2005 immediately after his oral termination. The respondent-workman raised industrial dispute, thus, the reference was decided by the Labour Court while holding that he is ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service with 20% of back wages along with 9% interest. Thus, the present petition has been filed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Management intended to take back the respondent-workman to duty which is evident from Annexures P-2 and P-3. Despite that the respondent-workman failed to report back to duty. Therefore, the respondent-workman himself abandoned service on his own and there is no question of oral termination.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that background of oral termination is that staff of the petitioner-Management in particularly Karambir, Driver who has physically abused the respondent-workman and the matter was taken before the police and subsequently, it was compromised between the petitioner and the respondent-workman. Thus, the respondent-workman was not allowed to work from 26.5.2005 onwards and it is a fact that on 28.6.2005 demand notice was issued. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court.;