The burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations, and long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that the service is intended to be abandoned by the employee.

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 1.4.1997 passed by Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, ShimJa in Reference No. 129/93.

2. The facts of the case are that Des Raj Workman-respondent No. 2 herein has raised industrial disputes alleging therein that he was working with the petitioner-company as a Helper w.e.f. January 1, 1988. He proceeded on two days leave i.e. 29th and 30th May, 1992. On return after availing the leave, he was told by the Management that his services were no longer required w.e.f. June 6, 1992. A copy of the statement of the claim is placed on record as Annexure P-2. The State Government in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) made following reference to the Labour Court:— "Whether the termination of Shri Des Raj Kamgar son of Shri Hari Chand by Manager Continental Construction Ltd., village and P.O. Khairai, District Chamba, without serving any show cause notice or salary in lieu of notice or retrenchment benefits, is legal? If not, what relief Shri Des Raj Kamgar is entitled to?"

3. The petitioner-Company submitted detailed reply to the statement of claim. The stand of the management was that the Workman was appointed on daily wages w.e.f. December 1, 1990. It was denied that workman had applied for leave. According to the management, the Workman did not join his duties on June 6, 1992 and remained absent without any intimation to the Management. He kept on absenting himself till July 3, 1992 on which date a telegram was sent, a copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-4 directing the Workman to report for his duties immediately. The workman did not respond to the said telegram and a letter dated July 16, 1992, a copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-5 was addressed to him requesting him to resume his duties on or before July 23, 1992. The workman was also called upon to submit his written explanation as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It was further brought to the notice of the workman that in case he failed to resume his duties within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that he was no longer interested in the employment and had left the services of the Company of his own accord. The said letter was received back by the sender undelivered with the remarks of the postal authority that "the addressee was not found present in the house and was out of station". The petitioner-Company left with no other remedy except to terminate the services of the Workman vide letter dated July 24, 1992, (copy Annexure P-8) is placed on record. The workman was also advised to collect his final payment. Letter (Annexure P-8) was again returned by the postal authority with the remarks that "the addressee was not found available in his house and said to have gone out of station". Through letter dated August 6, 1992, a cheque for Rs. 281.95 paise towards full and final payments of the wages of the workman were sent to him (copy marked Annexure P-11). However, again the letter was returned by the postal authority with the same remarks. The Management stated that on perusal of the abovesaid communications it is clear that the workman had abandoned his job without any reasonable cause and the work of Chamera Project on which the workman was employed was completed on February 22, 1994 and thereafter all the workers employed on casual daily wage basis were declared surplus and retrenched according to law.

4. The Conciliation Officer, Charnba had given two opportunities to the workman to be present before him for conciliation proceedings but the workman failed to participate in the conciliation proceedings as such the proceedings were closed by order dated August 27, 1992 (copy marked Annexure P-14). The matter came up before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of the