CWP-2903-2018 -1- 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2903-2018 Date of decision: July 15, 2026 ALLOUDIN ...Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-II, FARIDABAD AND ANR. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate and Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Fateh Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned award dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while narrating the brief factual matrix of the case, submits that the petitioner-workman was engaged as a Turner by respondent No.2 with effect from 18.03.2009. However, when certain demands with respect to the service of the petitioner were raised by him, including issuance of wage slips, leave records and payment of overtime wages at the prescribed rates, the management became hostile and ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-2903-2018 -2- refused to permit him to resume duty on 11.01.2012, after the petitioner had returned from leave availed by him from 02.01.2012 to 10.01.2012. Aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was finally adjudicated upon by the Labour Court, the award passed by which is in challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court erred in treating the case as one of abandonment of service, despite the petitioner having repeatedly approached the management immediately after 11.01.2012 for resumption of duty and having served a demand notice within a week of the alleged termination. It is argued that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months and his services could not have been terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner was never terminated from service but had himself remained unauthorisedly absent with effect from 02.01.2012. Despite repeated communications dated 04.01.2012, 16.01.2012, 20.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 calling upon him to resume duties, he failed to report for work. It is further submitted that a charge-sheet dated 05.03.2012 was also issued, to which no reply was furnished. Even during conciliation proceedings, the management expressed its willingness to take the petitioner back in service without back wages, which offer was declined. It is, therefore, contended that the Labour Court rightly concluded that there was no termination by the management and that ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-2903-2018 -3- the reference itself was premature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11766-11767 of 2018, titled as ‘Manju Saxena V. Union of India and Another’, wherein while dismissing the appeal against denial of reinstatement, it was observed that since the conduct of the appellant constituted voluntary abandonment, therefore relief under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not be claimed. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: “5. We have perused the pleadings and Written Submissions made by the parties. 5.1 It is the admitted position that the Bank had offered four alternative positions such as "Business Development Officer", "Customs Service Officer", which were at par with her existing pay scale and emoluments. The Appellant was however not willing to accept any of the alternate positions offered to her. Nor was she willing to accept the redundancy package offered to her. In the circumstances the R2-Bank was justified in terminating the services of the Appellant, vide termination letter dated 01.10.2005. 5.2 The Bank has complied with the statutory requirements under Section 25F of the I.D. Act which lays down the conditions that an employer must comply, on the retrenchment of a workman. In the present case, the High Court has held that the Appellant had "abandoned" her job, on her refusal to accept any of the alternative positions with the bank, on the same pay scale. 5.3 The concept of "abandonment" has been discussed at length in a Judgment delivered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in The Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Ors., (1964) 4 SCR 265 wherein it was held that abandonment of service can be inferred from the existing facts and circumstances which prove that the employee intended to abandon service. This case was followed by a two judge bench in Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors., 2014(1) S.C.T. 659 : (2013) 10 SCC 253. In the case before us, the intentions of the Appellant can be inferred from her refusal to accept any of the 4 alternative positions offered by the R2-Bank. It is an admitted position that the alternative positions were on the same pay scale, and did not involve any special training or technical knowhow. In any event, the claims raised by the Appellant before various forums were with respect to enhancement of compensation, which are monetary in nature. The Appellant's conduct would constitute a ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-2903-2018 -4- voluntary abandonment of service, since the Appellant herself had declined to accept the various offers of service in the Bank. Furthermore, even during conciliation proceedings she has only asked for an enhanced severance package, and not reinstatement. Once it is established that the Appellant had voluntarily abandoned her service, she could not have been in "continuous service" as defined under Section 2(oo) the I.D. Act, 1947. S. 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by an employer, while terminating the services of an employee, who has been in "continuous service" of the employer. Hence, Section 25F of the I.D. Act, would cease to apply on her.” 7. Reverting to the case in hand, a perusal of the judicial record reveals that the management produced on record before the learned labour Court, contemporaneous correspondence comprising letters dated 04.01.2012 and 16.01.2012 addressed to the petitioner, followed by communications dated 20.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 addressed to his authorised representative, requiring him to report for duty. It was thereafter that charge-sheet dated 05.03.2012 was issued to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the management, during the conciliation proceedings, even expressed its willingness to permit the petitioner to resume duty, albeit without back wages, which was not accepted by the petitioner, and was thereafter followed by issuance of a charge-sheet dated 05.03.2012. 8. The Labour Court also returned a specific finding that apart from the demand notice and other self-serving representations, no independent material was produced by the workman to establish that the management had, in fact, terminated his services on 11.01.2012. Similarly, the claim that the petitioner-workman had proceeded on sanctioned leave, and that thereafter he repeatedly approached the management seeking resumption of his service, remained unsubstantiated by way of any evidence on record. In the considered opinion of this Court, these findings are borne out from the record and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unsupported ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-2903-2018 -5- by evidence. 9. Equally significant is the fact that the petitioner did not accept the offer extended by the management during conciliation proceedings to resume duties without back wages. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the conduct of the workman did not support the allegation of termination by the management, but rather indicated that the petitioner himself did not resume duties despite being called upon to do so. The finding that the reference was premature is thus founded on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the impugned award, which may warrant any interference. 11. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court to re- appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) July 15, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment