Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 2.3.93 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition, by which the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with consequential benefits and held that the Jain Swetamber Nakoda Parshwanath Tirth, Mewa Nagar, district Barmer, is not an `industry and petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the employment.

(2). The petitioner had alleged that he was appointed as a Chowkidar on 19.6.1980 and worked continuously upto 2.11.85 with the respondent No. 1 and his services had been terminated orally without any reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ``the Act). As the conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate government made a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labor Court on the issue: whether the retrenchment/termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 2.11.85 was valid and legal, if no, to what relief he was entitled to ? Petitioner filed the claim petition before the Labour Court making the averments as mentio- ned above. Counter claim was filed by the respondents taking specific pleas that the establishment was not an industry and petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the service and when he did not turn-up, his name was removed from register on 17.1.86 and before doing that the Manager of the respondent establishment had sent registered letters/notices to the petitioner and the receipt of the post officer were, also, produced. Respondent No.1 had sent a registered letter dated 2.11.1985, which was received back by the respondents with an endorsement that addressee had gone out. The Petitioner admitted before the Labour Court that he had received the letter dated 2.12.85 sent by the respondent establishment but he did not submit any reply in response to the same. The petitioner further admitted the receipt of two registered letters sent to him subsequently.

(3). The Labour Court considered the evidence on record and the legal submissions made by the parties and recorded the finding of fact that as the petitioner himself had admitted the receipt of two registered letter and,also, the letter dated 2.12.85, there was no occasion for the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner orally and it was a clear case of voluntarily abandonment of service by him. The Court further held that the respondent establishment was not an ``industry within the meaning of provisions of the Act.

(4). Heard Mr. D.K. Parihar, and Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, learned counsel for the parties.

(5). Shri Parihar has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the respondent establishment is not an ``industry.. It has been submitted that the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, does not provide exemption to Dharamshalas run on charitable basis rather it dealt with opening and closing hours of an establishment and weekly holidays. The contention has been that in view of this exemption for the limited purpose, it cannot be said that the said Dharamshala is not an industry within the meaning of the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act.

(6). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to determine the issue whether respondent establishment is an industry of not. The petitioner remained absent for seventy-five days on his own sweet will for the reason of his transfer from one place to another and he did not join at the place where he was transferred as it had not been the case of the petitioner that he went to take charge at the transferred place and was not allowed to work there. It has vehemently been submitted by Mr. Parihar that even if a workman/employee remains absent for unreasonably long period, i.e. for more than a decade, still in that eventuality the employer cannot terminate his se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document