The judgment establishes the importance of the burden of proof, the principles of presumption of service by registered post, and the definition of 'retrenchment' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions have been filed against the impugned Award of the Labour court dated May 14, 1998, by which the claim of the workmen had been accepted holding that the services of the workmen had been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), but in lieu of reinstatement, certain amount of compensation has been granted to the workmen.

( 2 ) CROSS writ petitions have been filed by the employer being aggrieved of the Award of compensation and by the workmen for not awarding reinstatement. As the employer is the same, facts are also identical and the Awards have also been made on similar line, all these petitions are disposed of by the common judgment and for the same, the facts of Writ petition No. 2623/1998 are being considered.

( 3 ) IN the said case, the workman was employed in July, 1979 and he worked up to november, 1991 and it was alleged that his services were terminated orally on November 30, 1991. The workman raised an industrial dispute and the Appropriate Government made a reference, vide order dated November 25, 1994: whether the services of the workman had been terminated illegally on November 30, 1991, and if yes, to what relief he wa entitled to? In reply to the claim petition, the employer submitted that the services of the workman were never terminated but he had abandoned the services voluntarily and he had also indulged in illegal activities of stealing petrol and diesel but the employer had condoned the said misconduct. Even before the Labour: court, the representative of the employer made a statement on February 26, 1998 that the employer was ready to give employment to the workman and he was given employment during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour: court, but he did not work regularly and again abandoned the job. Workman was given information by a letter Under Postal Certificate but he did not join. That dispute is not relevant for determining the present controversy. As the workman had worked for a long period, it is not necessary to see whether he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year counting backwards from the date of retrenchment. The only issue remains to be determined is: whether his services were terminated or he had abandoned the service voluntarily?

( 4 ) THE specific stand of the employer before the Labour Court had been that the workman remained absent from November 30, 1991 onwards voluntarily. He was sent several messages orally through persons but he did not turn up and ultimately he was sent a letter Under postal Certificate dated June 2, 1992 and the, proof of which was produced before the Labour court. The workman did not deny the acceptance of the letter under postal certificate, nor has it been anybodys case that the proof of postal certificate was a forged or fabricated document, nor the learned Labour Court has tried to examine the case from that angle.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 27 of the General clauses Act, there is a presumption of service by registered post, as held by the Honble supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433; Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.) v. V. K. Gururaj, 1996 (7) SCC 275; State ofu. P. v. T. P. Lai Srivastava, 1996 (10) SCC 702; adavala Suthaiah v. Special Deputy Collector, land Acquisition Unit, 1997 (1) SCC 130; and shimla Development Authority v. Santosh sharma (Smt.), AIR 1997 SC 1791 : 1997 (2) scc 63 7: 1997-I-LLJ-831.

( 6 ) IN Madan Lal Kadia v. Union of India, air 1968 Orissa 234, the Orissa High Court placed reliance upon the Judgment of Privy council in Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy, air 1918 PC 102 and held that there can also be presumption of receiving the letter sent under postal certificate in view of the provisions of section 114 (f) of the Evidence Act.

( 7 ) IN Kanaklata Ghosh v. Amal Kumar ghosh, AIR 1970 Calcutta 328, a similar view has been reit