Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The Petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Helper on June 9, 1989 with M/s Dominent Offest Private Limited, Gurgaon. His services were terminated on March 20, 1991. He raised an industrial dispute. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court: -

"whether the termination of Laxmi Kant is in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled. "

2. The Labour Court, has found as a fact that the petitioner had been appointed on July 2, 1990, and not on June 9, 1989. It has been further found that it was he who remained absent from duty and did not join though he had received a letter Exhibit M.4 wherein the management had asked him to report for duty. It has also been observed that the petitioner was again given an opportunity by the Labour Officer and was asked to "report for duty" but he did not join duty and filed the demand notice. Even then the management made an offer that the petitioner could join duty. He did so for two days and thereafter did not report for work. (To be continued in next issue)

3. On the basis of the above findings, the La-hour Court has held that it was the petitioner who had "stayed away from work and his services h