- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure P -1), whereby, the Labour Court, Panipat has declined the reference of the petitioner -worklady on the ground that she had left her service out of her own sweet will and did not report for duty despite issuance of several letters. Accordingly, it was held that the management has been able to prove that the worklady had remained absent from duty and left the job on her own will.
(2.) A perusal of the award would go on to show that the grievance of the petitioner -worklady was that she had joined duty as Operator Assembly on 09.07.2001 and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,254/ - per month. A dispute arose on 18.09.2007 when Mr. A.K. Misra, Unit Head, tried to molest her. She objected to his misdeeds and was not allowed to join duty from 17.10.2007. The defence taken by the management was that she was rude towards her superior colleagues and in a habit of picking up quarrel and used abusive language and was not punctual. She used to misbehave with colleagues and threatened to involve them in false cases. On 18.09.2007, she picked up quarrel with Sunita Devi and when the matter was taken for conciliation, she was taken on duty on 10.12.2007. She repeated the same behaviour on 10.12.2007 and picked up quarrel and started threatening supervisors and personal manager. She lodged a complaint with the police and involved A.K. Misra in a false case. She made a complaint to S.P. Sonepat and in inquiry, complaint was found to be false. She picked up a quarrel with co -worker and on 17.12.2007 she went to gate and showed her inability to join duty. The atmosphere had been spoiled in the industry and she had also filed a private complaint against the General Manager, A.K. Misra under Section 354 IPC.
(3.) THAT from the award of the Labour Court, it would be clear that settlement had been arrived at in view of the demand notice dated 18.10.2007 inter se the management and the worklady and the management had agreed that the worklady can join duty from 10.12.2007 but no salary would be given for the gap period but her services were continued. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - had been paid by A.K. Misra to the worklady, which was credited in the bank account and the complaint filed by her had been withdrawn before the JMIC, Sonepat. Notice dated 12.09.2007 was Ex.M7 issued to her and her report of behaviour Ex.M -8, Report of Nepal Singh - Supervisor Ex.M -9 and letter dated 18.09.2007 Ex. M -10 issued to her were also noticed. The fact that notices of absence from duty were issued to her and she had opted not to report for duty, which fact was further admitted by her in her cross examination that she had received three letters for joining duty. It is also matter of record that she had joined for five days after the settlement on 10.12.2007. Accordingly, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management could not be put to loss by the employee, who was making litigation as a fruitful industry and decided the reference against her. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that due to the misconduct of A.K. Misra, she has been put to loss and she has also lost her job. The Labour Court has wrongly been biased by the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -, which she received in the complaint, which was compromised with the said Unit Head. It was accordingly submitted that the Labour Court was unnecessarily prejudiced by the said events.;