IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 A.K. SHARMA .....Appellant Versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

* * * * *

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Bench dated 18.07.2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by him impugning the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad dated 23.05.1997 (Annexure P-11) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had worked with respondent No.2 for nearly four years. During this period, he fell ill and took medical leave with effect from 12.09.1985. After recovering from illness, he reported back to duty on 17.12.1985. However, he was not allowed to join and his services were illegally terminated in December, 1985. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been reinstated with continuity of service and with the benefit of full back wages.

3. Heard.

4. It is the case of the appellant that he had joined respondent No.2 as an Assistant Inspector on 22.10.1981, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.510/-. He is stated to have proceeded on medical leave on 12.09.1985 and could not report on duty for about three months. Upon his recovery, when he returned to work on 17.12.1985, he was not permitted to rejoin, and his services were allegedly terminated illegally. Thereafter, the appellant served a demand notice dated 27.01.1986 upon the Management of respondent No.2. The stand of respondent No.2, however, was that the appellant’s services were never terminated, rather, he had abandoned his services, having proceeded on leave for three months ‘without information’ and thereafter, failed to resume duty. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Officer but as the Management of respondent No.2 failed to appear, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The matter was then pending before the Office of Deputy Labour Commissioner and the parties were directed to appear before it. The appellant had appeared only on one occasion but failed to attend subsequent hearings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Management reiterated its stand that the services of the appellant had not been terminated. After the failure report was sent by the Office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, a reference was made to the Labour Court.

5. The appellant, apart from filing his own affidavit before the Labour Court, did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the allegation that his services were illegally terminated. On the contrary, he admitted that he was employed as a Milkman and earning approximately Rs.1500/- per month. The Labour Court, relying on document Ex.M-15 produced by MW- 2 Shiv Kumar, Steno in the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, observed that the appellant had never expressed his willingness to rejoin duty or even requested the Management of respondent No.2 to take him back on duty. It was under these circumstances, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from service.

6. We are in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Bench and the award of the Labour Court which have rightly observed that the present case is of abandonment of service by the appellant himself, rather than termination of his employment by the Management of respondent No. 2. The Single Bench has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay S. Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors, (2013) 10 SCC 253 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that absence from duty for a long time would amount to voluntary abandonment of job. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

“9. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed