JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Panipat Co-opera live Sugar Mills Ltd., is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the award of the learned Labour Court by which it has been held that “the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. February 24, 1987 i.e., the dale on which the demand notice was served”. A tew facts may be noticed.
2. It is averred that respondent No. 2 had worked on daily wages fordiffcrent durations of time with the petitioner. In the year 1982, he worked for a period of 96 days. Thereafter, in the year 1983, the respondent workman worked for 224 days. In the year 1984, he worked for 250 days, while in 1985, he worked for 107 days only. The details have been furnished in a statement appended as Annexure P,4 with the writ petition. The petitioner states that after working for 10 days in the month of November 1985, the respondent absented himself. Then he served a notice of demand dated February 24, 1987, The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat gave notice to the petitioner, when it was stated on its behalf that work on daily wages could be given to the workman. The respondent-workman refused to accept the offer. Thereafter, the appropriate authority referred the matter to the Labour Court. The respondent-workman filed a statement of claim which was controverted by the petitioner by filing a reply. After recording the evidence, the Labour Court passed the impugned award. Aggrieved by this award, the Management has come to this Court through the presentpetition. The Motion Bench admitted the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 was duly served. No written statement has been filed.
3. I have heard Mr. C.B.Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent workman. Mr. Goel contends that the award given by the learned Labour Court is wholly arbitrary and is not based on any evidence on the record of the case.
4. The learned Labour Court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the workman has been terminated? OPW.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether termination is illegal and unjustified? OPW.
3. Relief.
5. The primary issue before the learned Labour Court was Issue No. 1. The workman had to prove that his services had been terminated by the management On a perusal of the award, I find that the learned Labour Court has only referred to the statement of the workman, wherein he had denied the suggestion that he had been shown absent, in the list of employees. The Labour Court then observed that “if the workman had been shown absent, it was for the management to issue a notice to him to explain his absence…”. There is no reference to any evidence led by the workman to show that the management had actually terminated his services.
6. In the normal course of events, if the services are terminated, there would be an order to that effect which would be conveyed to the workman. Even if no order in writing is conveyed, the workman would approach the management and ask for employment. There is no reference to any evidence that may have been adduced by the workman in this behalf. Still further, the Management in its reply to the claim application had categorically stated the workman had abandoned his employment suo moto and that he had been offered employment during conciliation proceedings, but the workman had refused to join. The learned Labour Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. It appears to have been influenced by the fact that the Management had not sent any notice to the workman. No evidence has been pointed out to show that the Management was aware of the address of the workman, who was working on daily wages only. The onus of proving the issue was on the workman. No reference to any evidence has been made to indicate that the workman had discharged the onus or that the Management had actually terminated his service.
7. There is another aspect of the matter. In the writ petition, a categorical statement has been made that the workman attended office for 107 days in the year 1985 and absented himself thereafter. No written statement controverting this assertion has been filed. It further appears that if the management had terminated the services of the workman in November 1985, he would not have waited till February 24, 1987 before serving the notice of demand.
8. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it appears that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the workman had been able to prove that his service had been illegally terminated. Accordingly, the award dated December 7, 1990 cannot be sustained. It is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.