Ram Kumar vs The Polc Patiala And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 6461 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Kumar vs The Polc Patiala And Ors on 21 March, 2024

CWP-10441-1998 1 2024: PHHC:041284

211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-10441-1998
DECIDED ON: 21.03.2024
RAM KUMAR  -------------- ae PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND
ANOTHER  -- sees ane RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present: Mr. Rajneesh Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner -- Ram Kumar has

assailed the award dated 05.09.1997, passed by learned Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patiala, whereby reference No.68 of 1993,

has been answered against him.

2. Pleaded case of the workman is that on account of refusal to

accept the transfer order from the Sales Department to the Store

Department, he was shown absent from duty w.e.f. 02.07.1992, and

ultimately, he was terminated from the services on 27.07.1192, on

account of being absent from duty for more than eight days.

3. It is the said termination order which was the subject matter

before learned Labour Court and same has been held to be justified order,

as per law.

4. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated

13.02.2015, passed by the Daily Lok Adalat of this Court (Punjab and

Haryana High Court) and submits that in lieu of the facts recorded See ee mon

Punjab & Haryana Hi Chandigarh

CWP-10441-1998 2 2024: PHHC:041284

therein, that Road Master Industries of India Limited, Rajpura, (respondent No.2) has been closed and in the absence of any fresh instructions from his client, he is unable to assist the Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that he is not sure whether with the efflux of time, any substantial cause or issue for its adjudication, still survives or not, with the petitioner, as since long, he is not in contact with the petitioner -- Ram Kumar.

6. In the backdrop of circumstances explained by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option, except to dispose of

the present writ petition for want of prosecution.

7. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an

appropriate application for seeking revival of the present writ petition, with preparation to argue the matter, within eight weeks from today, in case, any substantive issue still exists along with a cause of action to the petitioner.

9. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at

the address of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 21.03.2024 JUDGE

Lavisha

Whether speaking/reasoned _ Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

authenticity of this order/judgment