JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The respondent No. 3/Mr.Ramaji (hereinafter referred to as the workman') was working with the petitioner (hereinafter called as `the management') as Turner. According to him, he was employed on 2nd November, 1978. He approached the Conciliation Officer alleging that he was refused duty by the management which tantamounted to termination of his services. As the conciliation proceedings ended in failure, following reference was made by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration to the Labour Court No. VII for adjudication:

"Whether the management refused duty to the workman and whether this tantamounts to termination of service. If so whether the termination is illegal and unjustified what directions are necessary in this respect?"

2. After adjudicating the dispute, the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 17th February, 1990 held that termination of the workman's services was bad in law. However, for reasons stated in the award, the Labour Court declined to grant back-wages and thus held that the workman was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service but without any wages.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the management challenging the said award in so far as it relates to relief of reinstatement having been given to the workman. It may be noted that the workman had also filed CWP No. 1836/1990 against that part of the award whereby he was denied the back-wages. Rule was issued in both the petitions on 24th April, 1991. However, the petition filed by the workman was ultimately dismissed in default/for non-prosecution. In this petition also the workman has not appeared at the time arguments and therefore, I have heard Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for the management.

4. The case set up by the workman in the statement of claim filed by him was that he was refused duty and on his complaint made to the Labour Inspector, the Labour Inspector tried his level best on 12th April, 1983 and on 19th April, 1983 to reinstate the workman on duty but the management refused duty. The defense of the management in the reply filed to the statement of claim was that the management never refused duty to the workman. On the contrary, the workman started absenting himself with effect from 1st April, 1983. Various letters were sent to the workman to report for duty. Letters were even sent to the Conciliation Officer for this purpose but the workman did not report for duty. It is therefore, the workman who abandoned the service and his services were not terminated by the management. A preliminary objection was also taken to the effect that there was no valid demand made by the workman on the management before raising the dispute and therefore, it was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and the reference was also incompetent. Following issues were framed by the Labour Court:

1.Whether there was valid demand made on the management before raising the dispute?

2.As in terms of reference.

5. First issue has been answered against the management holding that no formal demand notice is required to be served upon the management before raising the dispute as there is no specific mode of raising demand which is stipulated in the Act. The workman had approached the Labour Inspector and then the Conciliation Officer seeking a direction that he be allowed to join the duties and it would amount to raising demand for reinstatement.

6. In so far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, the Labour Court has held that the management could not prove service of demand letters sent to the workman or the Conciliation Officer. Although observations are made that if all these letters are taken together, prima facie, it would make the court believe that the management was interested in providing duty to the workman but the workman was not interested. However, only on the ground that services of these letters were not proved, no relia