Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish Kumar vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043853
234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 01
01-04-2025
1. CWP-15036-2016 (O&M)
MUNISH KUMAR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JALANDHAR
AND ORS.
ORS
........Respondent(s)
2. CWP-15046-2016 (O&M)
NITESH RAI ........Petitioner
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JALANDHAR
AND ORS.
........Respondent(s)
3. CWP-15056-2016 (O&M)
AMIT KUMAR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JALANDHAR
AND ORS.
........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. J.S Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
(joined through Videoo Conferencing).
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and
Ms.Priya Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. Present bunch of three writ petitions involve common question
of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043853
CWP-15036-2016 (O&M) and other connected cases
by a common order. All three petitions herein are challenging the same
award dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Labour Court.
2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance of the
petitioner(s) is that without even discussing upon the issue that without there
being any evidence to show that the petitioner(s) had abandoned their job, a
finding has been recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned
award dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) in CWP No.15036 of 2016 merely
on the submission by the respondent-Management.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that the
petitioner(s) were appointed as a Chowkidar on a Class-IV post with the
respondent-Corporation in the year 1991 and they worked continuously for a
period of 11 year when their services were wrongly terminated and once, the
petitioners were working for a period of 11 years with the respondent-
Corporation, it cannot be said that on one fine morning, Workman will
abandon the job.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that no such
evidence was brought to the notice of the Labour Court that it was the
petitioner(s)-Workmen who abandoned their job and not the respondent(s)
that wrongly terminated their services.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further argues that the
findings while passing the impugned order has been recorded by the Labour
Court without appreciating the facts and evidences, which have come on
record.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Corporation submits that once, it has already come on record that the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043853
CWP-15036-2016 (O&M) and other connected cases
petitioner(s)-Workman have abandoned their job and the same has been
accepted by the Tribunal hence, the said acceptance need not be re-opened
and the present bunch of the writ petitions may kindly be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present bunch of cases with their able assistance.
8. The petitioner(s)-Workmen had worked with the respondent-
Corporation for more than a decade. Nothing has come on record to show as
to why on one fine morning, the petitioner(s)-Workmen abandoned the job
especially when they have been working for so long. The said issue has not
been dealt with by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. The
Labour Court while passing the impugned award has only relied upon the
assertion of the respondent-Corporation that there is no positive act on the
part of the respondent-Corporation to terminate the services of the
petitioner(s)-Workmen hence, it is to be treated as a case of abandonment.
9. While recording the said finding, the Tribunal has ignored the
fact that there was no appointment order in favour of the petitioner-
Workmen giving appointment to the petitioners as the petitioners were
working on a daily-wage basis.
10. Once an employee has been working on a daily-wage basis, the
usual practice for the employer is to tell such employees orally that their
services are no longer required hence in such cases, the specific order of
termination is hardly passed.
11. Further, in case the petitioner(s)-Workmen had abandoned their
job, who had already rendered service for 10 years with the respondent-
Corporation, nothing has been brought on record by the respondent-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043853
CWP-15036-2016 (O&M) and other connected cases
Corporation to show that they looked out for the petitioner(s)-Workmen to
ensure that whether, those Workman and interested in working and qua this,
whether any communication of any kind so as to intimate them, to join the
services was sent to them or not. Even when the reference was raised by the
petitioner(s)-Workmen, the respondent-Corporation could have asserted that
they never terminated the services of the petitioner(s)-Workmen and that
they are ready to welcome the petitioner(s)-Workmen so that they can
perform their duties. No such actions on the part of the respondent-
Corporation has been brought before the Court by the respondent-
Corporation to prove their assertion that the abandonment of job was on the
part of the petitioner(s)-Workmen.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management has argued
that as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C)
3927 of 1992 decided on 18.01.1996 titled "State of Haryana Vs. Om
Parkash and ors.", where the daily-wage worker, who had absented himself
for a period of 4 years before raising the demand, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the abandonment of the job was on the
part of the petitioner(s)-Workmen. The said judgment cannot be applied in
the present case, where the petitioner(s)-Workmen, had continuously
discharged the duties for a period of 11 years before it was alleged by the
respondent(s)-Corporation that the petitioner(s)-Workmen have abandoned
the jobs. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Om
Parkash's case (supra), will not be applicable in the present case as the
facts of the present case are entirely different from Om Parkash's case
(supra) . Even otherwise in Om Parkash's case (supra), the Workman had
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043853
CWP-15036-2016 (O&M) and other connected cases
not worked even for 240 days so as to seek the benefit of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Om
Parkash's case (supra), will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the present bunch of cases.
13. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the impugned
award dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the present bunch of
petitions are remanded back to the Labour Court to record a specific finding
based upon the facts and evidences, which have come on record whether, it
is a case of termination or abandonment of job.
14. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on
30.04.2025.
15. It may be noticed that nothing mentioned in the order will be
treated as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits as the Labour
court will be free to decide the said issue on the basis of the evidences and
facts, which will come on record.
16. It may be directed that in order to record the said findings in
case, the parties are to be allowed to give the additional evidence, the same
be also permitted on the discretion of the Labour Court.
17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
18. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
01-04-2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES
Whether reportable: NO
5 of 5
