Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3170
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.S.Narang and Arvind Kumar JJ.
Om Parkash
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court
C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006,
of,
C.W.P. No. 12131 of 2006,
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 2006
Failure to obtain adequate approval to join another employer while being employed constitutes abandonment of service, justifying termination.
Headnote:
Abandonment of Service - Labour Dispute - The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to dismiss the claim of the petitioner-workman, ruling that the petitioner's actions in joining another employer without adequate approval amounted to abandonment of service, justifying the termination of his employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills, Bhuna, and was later reinstated into service after a compromise with another employer. He then joined Bhuna Sugar Mills again, claiming to have taken leave from the other employer, but his services were terminated, leading to a dispute referred to the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions constituted abandonment of service, as he failed to provide evidence of obtaining adequate approval to join Bhuna Sugar Mills while being employed by the other respondent-department.
Issues: The main controversy was whether the petitioner's actions constituted termination or abandonment of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to prove obtaining leave or permission from the respondent-department to join another employer amounted to abandonment of service, justifying the termination of his employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's decision to decline the petitioner's claim.
, J.
1. The prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of award dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Labour Court whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been dismissed.
2. Facts emerge out from the petition may be noticed.
3. Initially the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills, Bhuna on 13.2.1992 as a Carpenter on daily wages. He worked upto 22.11.1993 when his services were terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 25.3.1998 ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including 50% back wages.
4. During the pendency of the above-said reference before the Labour Court, the petitioner, joined respondent No.2 as Carpenter on daily wages. He worked there upto January 1996. Thereafter, his services were also terminated there. However, he was reinstated into service in June 1998 as a result of compromise entered between the parties.
5. Since the petitioner wanted to continue with Bhuna Sugar Mills, for implementation of the said award dated 25.3.1998, he approached this Court by way of filing a petition, which was disposed of on 31.1.2001 with a direction to Bhuna Sugar Mills to implement the above-said award dated 25.3.1998. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001 claiming to have taken leave from competent authority of respondent No.2. Due to some circumstances, the petitioner submitted resignation to Bhuna Sugar Mills on 6.4.2001, which was accepted on 8.5.2001. The petitioner was relieved on 8.5.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner when reported for duties on 9.5.2001 to respondent-department, he was informed that his services were terminated on 18.4.2001 on account of abandonment of service.
6. The said action of the respondent-department was challenged by the petitioner by serving a demand notice. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent-department contested the claim of the petitioner. Their stand was that the petitioner abandoned his services from the respondent-department in order to get the benefit of the award dated 25.3.1998 joined at Bhuna Sugar Mills. He concealed all these things from the respondent-department. Therefore, his services were rightly terminated. The Labour Court, vide the impugned award, as noticed above, dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
7. It is only due to this, the petitioner-workman has challenged the award dated 14.9.2005 through the instant writ petition.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book as also the impugned award. The only controversy is whether it is a case of termination or abandonment of service. The factual position in this case is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the award dated 25.3.1998 and with the intervention of this Court, the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills on 4.4.2001. It is also not in dispute that on that day itself, he was working with the present respondent-department. It is not his case that by virtue of the terms of his employment with the respondent-department, he was permitted to seek another employment even during continuance of his service with the present respondent-department. A workman cannot have employment at two different places at one point of time. The only argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner joined Bhuna Sugar Mills with the prior permission of the competent authority of the respondent-department. However, the argument is not convincing. A bare perusal of the award shows that the petitioner-workman admitted in crossexamination that he had obtained leave from the respondent-department for resuming duties in Bhuna Sugar Mills where he subsequently resigned, after receiving back wages. He was thus, heavily burdened to prove the factum of obtaining leave from the competent authority of respondent-department.
9. Ho
