IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : December 12, 2025 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, PANIPAT -PETITIONER V/S RAJINDER PRASAD AND ANR.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, with Mr. Shubham Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through instituting the present writ petition, the petitioner/management assails the award dated 30.05.2000, passed by respondent No.2/Labour Court, Panipat, whereby, upon holding that the termination of services of respondent No.1/workman was illegal for want of a departmental enquiry and non-payment of retrenchment compensation, the reference was answered in favour of the workman.

2. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the management submits that the workman was engaged as a Conductor purely on a contractual basis and not pursuant to any regular selection process. It is contended that he worked from 10.03.1993 till 09.11.1993, after which he voluntarily abandoned his duties without any leave application or prior intimation. Owing to his wilful absence, the management issued a show-

cause notice dated 24.11.1993 (Ex. WW-12). However, no reply was submitted by the workman within the stipulated period. It is further submitted that the workman never made any attempt to resume duties after abandoning service and did not raise any dispute or serve a demand notice until 29.08.1998, i.e. nearly five years after his abandonment of service. However, these material aspects were not appreciated by the Labour Court in their correct perspective while answering the reference in favour of the workman.

3. Learned counsel for the management further submits that even if the Labour Court was of the view that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, it ought to have limited the relief to reinstatement while reserving liberty to the management to initiate a departmental enquiry into his voluntary abandonment from 10.11.1993. In any event, voluntary abandonment obviated the need for a departmental enquiry, and holding such an enquiry would have been an empty and futile formality prior to passing the termination order.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the workman vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the management. It is contended that there is no dispute that no departmental enquiry was conducted, and that employees junior to the workman were retained in service, a fact which stands admitted by the management’s witnesses in their depositions before the Labour Court. The action of the management, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice.

5. Learned counsel for the workman further submits that while the demand notice was raised on 29.08.1998, the show-cause notice was issued subsequently on 24.11.1999, i.e. after a lapse of more than one year. It is also contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) were not complied with. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly answered the reference in favour of the workman.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully examined the record.

7. As regards the plea of the management that the workman had voluntarily abandoned his duties, the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit acceptance. The workman was initially appointed as a Conductor on a contractual basis for a period of 90 days, which contract was subsequently extended. During the subsistence of the extended contract, the workman remained absent from duty w.e.f. 10.11.1993, whereupon the management issued a show-cause notice dated 24.11.1993, calling upon him to explain his unauthorized absence within seven days, failing which appropriate action was proposed to be taken