JAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. INTER DECKER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 2nd September, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi whereby the learned court allowed the application of the Respondent under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC and ordered framing of additional issues and the award dated 30th July, 2008 whereby the learned Presiding officer held that the workman Petitioner abandoned his service and thus, refused to grant him any relief.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the present case no intention of abandonment of service has been made out against the Petitioner. In fact, on termination of his service on 3rd June, 1999, the workman had promptly made a representation to the Respondent/ Management vide demand notice dated 10th June, 1999 through central labour union asking them to reinstate him in service with immediate effect. To constitute abandonment there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. However, in the instant case no such intention can be imputed on the workman when he was diligently pursing his case before the Management. Reliance is placed on G.T. Lad and others v. Chemical and Fibers of India Ltd., 1979 1 SCC 590. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court has wrongly placed reliance on the call back letters dated 4th June, 1999, 12th June, 1999, 19th June, 1999 and 24th August, 1999 of the Respondent asking the workman to resume duties.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the Petitioner had abandoned his service by not resuming on duty after 11.00 a.m. on 3rd June, 1999 and further failed to resume duty despite written communication and call back letters issued by the Management on 4th June, 1999, 12th June, 1999, 19th June, 1999 and 24th August, 1999. The Petitioner had in his cross-examination admitted his name and address on the letters. Merely due to the absence of stamp on the AD cards it cannot be presumed that the said letters are forged. It is further contended that the respondent had participated in the conciliation proceedings and had duly submitted the written statement before the labour officer at Karampura which was rightly relied on by the Labour Court. It is lastly contended that it had received a complaint from Ramesh Singh and Mukesh Sharma that the workman had abused and physically assaulted them before the other staff when they refused him permission to leave.