The main legal point established in the judgment is that abandonment of service is a question of intention and cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence. The judgment also emphasized the requirement for the employer to give notice to the workman before termination and the need for holding an inquiry before termination.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:-

“(i) That a writ of certiorari be passed against the respondents and the impugned Award dated 15.7.2010 be set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that on 16.5.1995 respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) was selected for the post of Pharmacist, on contract basis, for sale counter of medicines in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘DDU Hospital’). On 22.7.1995, he joined the office of H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation’), as per agreement dated 22.7.1995 entered into between workman Shri Ajay Sood and the Managing Director, H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. But, it appears that shop in the said hospital was not in existence, as such, workman was engaged on a consolidated salary of Rs.2000/-, at the head office of the Corporation. Since, Construction work of shop was in progress, workman was asked to look after the work of construction of the shop. As per workman, he accepted the offer for the reason that he was assured that he would be engaged in the medicine shop counter, whenever the same is ready. But fact remains that shop, which was under construction at the time of appointment of the workman in terms of agreement dated 22.7.1995, was allotted to the son of senior officer of H.P. Secretariat and that too without getting his name sponsored through Employment Exchange.

3. Workman-Ajay Sood also claimed that he had worked continuously without interruption w.e.f. 22.7.1995 till July, 1997 but in the month of October/November, 1996, Corporation suddenly stopped his wages and terminated his service without notice, in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Workman claimed that at the time of his illegal termination he had completed 240 days during preceding 12 months and, as such, his services could not be terminated without complying Section 25 F of the Act. Workman also claimed that for the month of November, 1996, he was not paid salary. In the aforesaid background, workman raised industrial dispute before the concerned authorities as a result of which, appropriate government made following reference under Section 10(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, for adjudication.

4. Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings, claim and counter claim filed on behalf of respective parties, framed following issues:-

“1. Whether Shri Ajay Sood left the job, on his own, in November, 1996 as per statement of respondent? If so, its effect? ….OPP

2. If Issue No. 1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief? ……OPP

3. Whether the petitioner is not a workman and the petition is not maintainable? ….OPR

5. Subsequently, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Industrial Tribunal by way of impugned award dated 15.7.2010, allowed the claim of the workman. Learned Industrial Tribunal while accepting the claim of the workman ordered that workman be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages w.e.f. 1.12.1996.

6. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid impugned award dated 15.7.2010 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, present petitioner - Corporation filed instant writ petition seeking relief’s as have been reproduced hereinabove.

7. Shri Arvind Sharma, counsel representing the Petitioner-Corporation vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is not sustainable as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Mr. Sharma forcefully argued that learned Industrial Tribuna