The main legal point established in the judgment is that abandonment of service is determined by the total or complete giving up of duties, as indicated by the intention not to resume the same, and must be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 2September, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi whereby the learned court allowed the application of the Respondent under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC and ordered framing of additional issues and the award dated 30July, 2008 whereby the learned Presiding officer held that the workman Petitioner abandoned his service and thus, refused to grant him any relief.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the present case no intention of abandonment of service has been made out against the Petitioner. In fact, on termination of his service on 3June, 1999, the workman had promptly made a representation to the Respondent/ Management vide demand notice dated 10June, 1999 through central labour union asking them to reinstate him in service with immediate effect. To constitute abandonment there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. However, in the instant case no such intention can be imputed on the workman when he was diligently pursing his case before the Management. Reliance is placed on G.T. Lad and others vs. Chemical and Fibers of India Ltd., 1979 (1) SCC 590. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court has wrongly placed reliance on the call back letters dated 4June, 1999, 12June, 1999, 19June, 1999 and 24August, 1999 of the Respondent asking the workman to resume duties. The AD cards associated with the registered letters do not bear the stamps of the post office and the only AD Card which bears the postal mark is the one which was returned undelivered. Further, no adverse inference can be drawn against the workman from the fact that the letters dated 4June, 1999 was sent by speed post and was not returned undelivered. Learned counsel contends that the learned Labour Court erred in accepting as evidence, a photocopy of an alleged response filed by the respondent before the conciliation officer despite the fact that the records of conciliation proceedings indicate that no such reply was filed and no representative of respondent was present before the conciliation officer.

Also, the respondent?s witness Shri B.S. Syal had for the first time in his evidence admitted that on 8June, 1999 the Petitioner along with the labour inspector had visited the premises for the purpose of securing reinstatement of workman and also produced a joining report exhibited as MW1/5 which was not a part of conciliation file. It is lastly contended that the Petitioner would not abandon his five year old employment with the Management merely on account of an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,000/-when no case of default in making payment is made out against him.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the Petitioner had abandoned his service by not resuming on duty after 11.00 a.m. on 3June, 1999 and further failed to resume duty despite written communication and call back letters issued by the Management on 4June, 1999, 12June, 1999, 19June, 1999 and 24August, 1999. The Petitioner had in his cross-examination admitted his name and address on the letters. Merely due to the absence of stamp on the AD cards it cannot be presumed that the said letters are forged. It is further contended that the respondent had participated in the conciliation proceedings and had duly submitted the written statement before the labour officer at Karampura which was rightly relied on by the Labour Court. It is lastly contended that it had received a complaint from Ramesh Singh and Mukesh Sharma that the workman had abused and physically assaulted them before the other staff when they refused him permission to leave. The workman had first, on 3June, 1999 left the service/duty without informing anyone and also did not reply to any call back letters, thus showed no interest to continue with his duties. The conduct of the Petitioner clearly demonstrates aband