The central legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services did not fall under the definition of 'retrenchment' as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, there was no requirement of serving any notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This common judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions, i.e. CWP-19905-2013 and CWP-14440-2013, which have been filed by the employer and the workman, respectively.

2. The employer has filed CWP-19905-2013 challenging the award dated 30.04.2013, whereby the Labour Court has held the termination of service of the respondent-workman to be illegal and has ordered payment of compensation. The workman has filed CWP-14440-2013 for modification of award and to grant him the benefit of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. The common facts, as involved in these two writ petitions, are that respondent-workman asserted that he had worked with the petitioneremployer with effect from 01.02.2000 till 14.11.2007. However, on 14.11.2007, his service was terminated without any notice and without any payment of compensation. Hence, he raised the labour dispute. At the time of his initial attempt, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had not recommended reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, on the ground that the respondent-workman himself had abandoned the job and he had refused to join even during the conciliation proceedings. Then the respondent-workman filed a fresh demand notice, upon which the reference was made to the Labour Court even without notice to the employer. The said reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman to the extent of award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The employer has challenged the validity of the award as such, and the respondent-workman has filed separate writ petition, as mentioned above, seeking reinstatement into service by modification of the award.

4. The stand of the petitioner-employer had been that the respondent-workman joined service with him on 12.09.2003 and he was working as a helper at the salary of Rs.2,300/- per month. He met with an accident on 06.03.2005. After that accident, the respondent-workman got treatment from the ESI hospital from 07.03.2005 to 15.06.2005 (total 101 days) and for that duration, the respondent-workman had received wages from the ESI department. However, after getting the fitness certificate, the respondent-workman did not agree to join his duties. Although, he raised a labour dispute, but during conciliation proceedings, he was asked to join duties even in the presence of the Labour Commissioner. However, there also he made a statement that he was not willing to join the duties, rather, he be given his all wages and dues; as required under the Labour Law. Consequently, the respondent-workman was paid his dues under his valid signatures on 20.06.2005. He was paid money in lieu of un-availed leave for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. He was also paid bonus for the year 20032004 and for the year 2004-2005. Beside this, service compensation worth Rs.1690/- was also paid to the respondent-workman. Hence, all the terminal benefits stood paid to the respondent-workman. Accordingly, nothing was left unpaid as per directions of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab. Hence, it was submitted that the claim of the respondent-workman in raising the industrial dispute was a concoction.

5. The parties led their respective evidence. The Labour Court found that it was not a case of abandonment of service. However, in stead of reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded the amount of compensation as mentioned above.

6. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner-employer has submitted that the respondent-workman himself abandoned the job. He was offered to join back even during the conciliation proceedings. He had refused to join duties in the presence of the Labour Commissioner. Therefore, the terminal benefits were paid to the respondent-workman. In his second attempt, the respondent-workman got the reference made even without notice to the petitioner-employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer has submitted that as per their consistent stand, they hav