Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda Advocate Vs. the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court Panipat and - Court Judgment

CWP No.2632 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2632 of 2014 Date of decision: 12.02.2014 Smt.

Kamlesh Kumari ...Petitioner(s) Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

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.

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 `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 Gupta Shivani 2014.02.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2632 of 2014 2 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.MiSr.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.MiSr.under Section 354 IPC.

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 `2,00,000/- had been paid by A.K.MiSr.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 Gupta Shivani 2014.02.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2632 of 2014 3 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 `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.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that from the narration of the above facts, it would go on to show that a dispute had arisen between the worklady and the Unit Head.

The matter was resolved inter se and she received a sum of `2,00,000/-, which was a personal dispute inter se her and the superior employee.

However, when she raised a demand notice on 18.10.2007, the management stated that she was free to join and the compromise was effected that she would be able to join duty from 10.12.2007.

The stand of the management from day one was that they had not terminated her services.

It is also matter of record, which has been admitted by the worklady herself, that she had received three notices for joining and it is also further matter of fact that she had also joined for a period of five days after the compromise.

In such circumstances, it would be apparent that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are well justified to the extent that she herself had remained absent from duty and left the job of her own will due to circumstances Gupta Shivani 2014.02.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2632 of 2014 4 which had vitiated the work atmosphere because of her dispute with A.K.Misra.

The said findings are findings of facts, which have been referred to and no fault can be found in the well reasoned order of the Labour Court.

It has time and again been held by the Apex Court that while exercising the powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is to exercise its power only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice has taken place.

The High Court will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge, appreciate or evaluate evidence and correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

The said principle was laid down in Surya Dev Rai versus Ram Chander Rai and otheRs.2003 (6) SCC675 It is where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere.

The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is in misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance in regard of the same.

Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which would be of such character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari.

In the present case, no such error of law or fact has been shown which would warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction Gupta Shivani 2014.02.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2632 of 2014 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order of Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed in limine.

12.02.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Gupta Shivani 2014.02.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh