GIAN CHAND Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 10.3.1993 passed by the Appropriate Govt. whereby the appropriate Govt. has refused to accept the prayer of the petitioner for referring the matter, regarding the termination of the petitioner's services for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(2.) In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it has been stated that the Appropriate Govt. has carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and their respective documents produced on record and there is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It has further been stated there in that after consideration of these documents the appropriate Govt. has come to the conclusion that the petitioner No. 1's termination, as alleged by him, is not a termination but. in fact, an abandonment of service by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has been transferred in Delhi itself and admittedly he has not joined his duties there. In this fact and circumstances of this case and documents available on record, the appropriate Govt. has rightly came to the conclusion that there is abandonment of services by the petitioner No. I himself and not termination.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, however, has very vehemently argued that this case cannot be a case of abandonment of service and is clearly a case of termination as the petitioner No. I has failed to resume duty after the transfer on account of some valid or cogent grounds and, therefore, it will not amount to an abandonment of service but certainly a case of termination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case as G.T. Lad & Others Vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. ( 1979) I.S .C.C. 590) wherein it has been observed that the failure to perform the duties pertaining to the Office must be with actual or imputed intention on the part of the. Officer to abandon and relinquish the Office. The intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party and in question of fact. temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to consitute an abandon- ment of services.