(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:13)ti(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:27)

(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:29)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:20)

(cid:29) !"(cid:11)#$(cid:11)(cid:29)"%&’((cid:11))(cid:10)*+(cid:10),+(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:31)

(cid:3)-(. /(cid:11)0! !"(cid:11)(cid:21)1"%!2&%&!3(cid:11)(cid:28)# 24(cid:11) (4(cid:11)#!5"2’ (cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)+++(cid:3)"!&!("2 (cid:11)(cid:11)

6"2’-’(cid:11)(cid:11)

(cid:28)&(4"2(cid:11)0&(75 (cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11) (cid:11)(cid:11) (cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)+++(cid:24)"’8#(4"(!’

(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:15)) (cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:18)9(cid:28):(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:24)+(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:23)0(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:24)0(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:11)0(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:11)0(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:17)

Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(cid:26)Board.

None for respondent(cid:26)workman.

* * *

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:20)

1. Despite information, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent(cid:26)workman. Hence, he is proceeded ex(cid:26)parte.

2. In the present petition, challenge is to the award dated 09.04.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana by which, the respondent(cid:26)workman was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity and 25% back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(cid:26)Board argues that the respondent(cid:26)workman was recruited in the year 1987 as Work Charge T Mate and he continued working as such for a period of 08 years till he absented himself from performing his duty and ultimately keeping in view the said fact that respondent(cid:26)workman was not performing his duty and was also involved in FIR No.49 dated 18.06.1995 under Section 379/511 of the IPC with regard to theft of transformer, the services of the respondent(cid:26)workman were terminated by the petitioner(cid:26)Board on 29.06.1995.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(cid:26)Board submits that no action was taken by the respondent(cid:26)workman to challenge the said order of termination of his services or to avail any remedy before the Labour Court for a period of 10 years and a reference against order of termination was ultimately raised by the respondent(cid:26)workman before the Labour Court in the year 2005 hence, the reference raised by the respondent(cid:26)workman was so belated that it could not have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court so as to grant him the benefit of reinstatement in service with continuity along with 25% back wages.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(cid:26)Board submits that once, the respondent(cid:26)workman was facing a criminal case and his services were consequently terminated in the year 1995, the delay in raising the reference against termination was fatal so as to avail the remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1947 Act’), which fact has not been at all considered though, the same was raised before the Labour Court.

6. Respondent(cid:26)workman has already been proceeded exparte.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(cid:26)Board and have gone thro