HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 30.8.1999, Copy Annexure P/l, vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and 70% back wages.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner has taken -up two contentions in his arguments : -

(3.) REGARDING the plea of the respondent having voluntarily left the job, the case of the respondent is that he worked upto 3.11.1995 while the case of the petitioner is that he worked upto 31.10.1995. Be that as it may. The demand notice was issued on 4.11.1995 i.e. within a very short time after the respondent stopped working/not allowed to work. This circumstance goes against the petitioner's say that the respondent has himself left the job. No other evidence from which it can be inferred that the respondent had left the job voluntarily, has been produced, in view of this, the circumstance against the petitioner goes un -rebutted.