@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mehtab S. Gill, J.@mdashThe petitioners have filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated January 21, 1999 (Annexure P-
1).
2. It has been averred that respondent No. 1 was engaged as a Labourer on daily wages basis by the Forest Guard for different period for
plantation purposes. Respondent No. I was not removed on August 1, 1995, but as alleged by the petitioner, he left the job on his own.
Respondent No. 1 then served a demand notice u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').
3. We have heard Shri Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners and Shri R.K. Malik, counsel for
workman- respondent No. 1 and perused the annexures attached thereto.
4. The plea of the petitioners'' counsel was that the workman-respondent No. 1 abandoned his job and that he was not retrenched. Dalip Singh,
MW-1, came into the witness box, who has merely stated that the workman left the job on his own accord. No record was produced to this effect
nor was any offer made to the workman that he can be taken back. It does not appeal to reason that after doing work for such a long time, i.e.
from January 1, 1989 to August 23, 1995, the workman would leave his job on his own accord.
5. Going through the statement showing the details of attendance of the workman commencing from January, 1989 till July, 1995 (Annexure P-5)
he has worked for various periods throughout the years. He has worked for some days, months and for full working days in different months. This
shows that when there was work in hand, he was called and put on to the required work. Further also, one can come to this conclusion that the
petitioners were happy with his work and that is why, he kept working for various dates in different months.
6. Demand notice was served on March 11, 1996. Shri Malik, counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the workman should be given full
back wages, while counsel for the petitioners states taht if he is reinstated, it is presumed that he must be earning for himself and his family members
for the days for which he did not work with the petitioners. We agree with the argument put forward by the State counsel and award 50% of back
wages to the workman from the date of his demand notice dated March 11, 1996 till the date of his reinstatement. The remaining part of the award
stands intact as it is.
For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed partly in the manner indicated above.
7. Petition partly allowed.
