!# 1. In th by the Lab the petitio no.1, has n consequen 2. Lear petitioner w for approx restrained demand n petitioner a +,-.+/+.01 !"#$ !# ! "# % ! ''''' %#&'%"'#() * In the present petition, the challeng he Labour Court dated 28.09.2017 (An petitioner that his services were wron , has not been accepted and his claim equential benefits has been rejected. Learned counsel for the for the ioner was appointed as a Welder on 02 approximately 21 years upto 13.03 ained from discharging his duties. and notice dated 25.04.2012 (Anne ioner against his wrongful termination - 1 – +,-.+/+.01 "/2$#!#.3.++.+3 ( ! #%#&'%"'# $ !& allenge is against the award passed (Annexure P-3), by which plea of e wrongly terminated by respondent s claim for reinstatement alongwith cted. r the petitioner submits that the r on 02.03.1991 and he worked there 3.03.2012, after which he was uties. He further submits that the (Annexure P-1) was given by the ination and ultimately, the issue was – ssed ea of dent with the there was t the the was VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document raised befo of services 3. Lear the facts o petitioner terminated impugned 4. Lear evidence w the job so therefore, t claim of termination 5. Lear documents put to the p 6. Lear institution petitioner and despite came for a perform th before the perspective +,-.+/+.01 d before the Labour Court for adjudic rvices of the petitioner is justified or n Learned counsel for the petitioner ar facts on record, a finding has been rec ioner himself had abandoned the job inated, thereby rejecting the claim of ugned award. Learned counsel for the petitioner ence which has come on record that job so as to invite the said finding efore, the award of the Labour Court m of the petitioner for the grant of ination with all consequential benefits Learned counsel for the petition ments which have been relied upon to the petitioner during the recording o Learned senior counsel appearing tution submits that it is not a case of ioner rather it is a case where the pet despite a letter dated 04.04.2012 writt e for and submitted an apology and w orm the duties but again absented and re the Labour Court which has bee pective so as to record the finding that - 2 – adjudication whether the termination ed or not. oner argues that without appreciating en recorded by the Tribunal that the he job and his services were never im of the petitioner by virtue of the ioner further argues that there is no d that the petitioner had abandoned findings of the Labour Court and, ourt may kindly be set aside and the ant of benefit of setting aside his enefits be allowed in his favour. etitioner further submits that the upon by the respondent were never ding of evidence. aring on behalf of the respondent- ase of termination of services of the the petitioner had abandoned his job written to him to join the duties, he and with the assurance that he will ed and all such record was produced as been appreciated in the correct g that services of the petitioner were – ation ating t the ever the is no oned and, d the his the ever - f the s job s, he will uced rrect were VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document never term finding nee 7. I hav the record 8. Kee record bef recorded b petitioner argument enquiry be employee there wou reason for abandonm petitioner. required to contended 9. As f that the concerned, may be no and that Learned co such objec document +,-.+/+.01 r terminated and that he himself ha ing needs no interference at the hands o I have heard learned counsel for the ecord with their able assistance. Keeping in view the totality of the rd before the Labour Court, it cann rded by the Labour Court qua aba ioner is perverse or contrary to th ment of learned counsel for the peti iry before termination, it may be noti loyee is being terminated, then only e would be a show cause notice and on for termination is misconduct. In t donment of job and not of terminati ioner. Hence, the question whether ired to be served upon the petitioner ended by the learned counsel for the pe As far as the arguments of the lear the documents, which were pres erned, including Ex.M6 were never p be noticed that once a document is br that too in the presence of the partie ned counsel for the petitioner has no objection raised before the Labour ment wherein the petitioner himself h - 3 – self had abandoned the job, which hands of this Court. or the parties and have gone through of the circumstances, which were on it cannot be said that the findings a abandonment of the job by the to the evidence on record. The e petitioner that there has to be an noticed that in case services of an only it might be a possibility that ce and inquiry to answer that the t. In the present case, it is a case of mination as is being alleged by the hether any show cause notice was tioner or not does not arise as being r the petitioner. e learned counsel for the petitioner presented before the authorities ever put to him. In regard to this, it t is brought before the Labour Court parties, the same is to be objected. has not been able to point out any bour Court qua validity of the said self has admitted in writing that he – hich ough re on ings the The e an of an that t the se of y the was eing ioner rities , it ourt . any said at he VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document was absen placed by treated to b 10. Lear termination any enquir the Labou noticed tha the Labour objected, t Court has letter Ex.M he was abs the same employee w 11. No o 12. Lear the finding 13. Kee dismissed. 4 5#26 )* * +,-.+/+.01 absent from duty without any valid ed by the Labour Court on the said ed to be misplaced or invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner ination of services and that too with enquiry of any misconduct alleged h Labour Court may kindly be set asid d that keeping in view the record w Labour Court including the attendance cted, the petitioner has been found rt has recorded a finding in paragraph r Ex.M6 dated 18.04.2014, the emplo as absent on his own without there be same will not be repeated again, w loyee was absent and his services were No other argument has been raised earned counsel for the petitioner h indings recorded by the Labour Court Keeping in view the above, the issed. 4.3(+.+3 * !+ * !% - 4 – valid justification and the reliance said document (Ex.M6) cannot be titioner argues that it is a case of o without any show cause notice or ged hence, the finding recorded by et aside. In this regard, it may be cord which has been brought before ndance register, which has not been found absent. Further, the Labour graph 9 of the award that as per the employee had given in writing that ere being any valid justification and ain, which clearly shows that the s were never terminated. aised. ioner has not been able to show that Court are perverse in any manner. e, the present petition is hereby ) !#%#&'%"'#* 2& # ) # ) – iance t be e of ce or d by y be efore been bour r the that and t the that reby * VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document