Jaskiran, Ex-Data Entry Operator v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.A.K.Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated

4.9.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding therein that a proper departmental enquiry was held against him. The Labour Court has also gone into the question of the quantum of punishment imposed upon the workman as per its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Competent Authority terminating the services of the workman was fully justified and in accordance with law in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner- workman had 18 years of service with the respondents. Due to her family C.W.P.No.18055 of 2008 -2- circumstances, firstly because of her divorce with her husband and secondly because of the death of her son, the petitioner-workman was mentally upset because of which her work was affected.

Due to these very reasons on some occasions, the workman could not attend to her duties and, therefore, was unable to effectively work with the Management. Counsel further contends that the enquiry held against the workman was not in consonance with the statutory rules, and for this he primarily contends that she was not given the assistance of a Lawyer which she had sought for. Counsel further contends that for the period of absence, the petitioner- workman had earlier been penalized by imposition of punishment of reduction in salary for the period of absence and then again for the same charge, she has now been ordered to be dismissed from service. Counsel contends that for the 18 years of service, the workman should be held entitled to some compensation. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A proper charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner-workman, to which reply was submitted by her and on consideration of the same, it was found unsatisfactory and accordingly an Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges.

The Inquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings and gave ample opportunity of hearing to the workman in the said proceedings, which fact stands admitted by the workman herself in her cross-examination before the Labour Court while appearing as AW-1. The petitioner-workman was supplied the copy of the enquiry report and she had herself stated in writing that she has been fully satisfied by the enquiry so conducted against her. To this effect, she in her letter dated 6.5.1999, has stated that “I have read the report and I C.W.P.No.18055 of 2008 -3- accept the same. I have to say nothing about the report. I have been given a personal hearing by the Director on 6.5.1999.” All this goes to show that the enquiry held against the workman was in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. As regards the question with regard to double jeopardy, which the counsel for the petitioner has raised, it goes without saying that for the absence period, the workman was not entitled to any salary on the principle of 'no work no pay', and accordingly was not paid for the said period.

On the basis of the evidence led by the Management and after considering the defence of the workman the Inquiry Officer had come to a conclusion that the charge as levelled against her stood fully proved. The charge against the workman was that she has not shown any improvement despite warning and giving of sufficient time during the period of 1994 to

1996. She had become habitual of coming late to the office and not paying attention to her work. Her output was also far below what was the required average of 50,000 KDS per day and her output was in between 1553 to 4116 KDS per day during the period 1994-95 to November 1996. The conduct of the employee had been found to be adamant and not willing to improve her conduct despite opportunities having been given to her. All this goes to show the extent to which the workman had taken the assignment non-seriously. In these days of efficiency wherein output through competition is there, if an organization is forced upon with employees who are inefficient and are unable to deliver the minimum which is accepted of an employee when the standards are fixed at a reasonable stage, the company itself would stand to lose as a whole. It would have an adverse impact on the working of the company and discipline as that would C.W.P.No.18055 of 2008 -4- encourage inefficiency and slackness amongst other employees, which in the present circumstances can neither be accepted nor condoned. The findings, therefore, as recorded by the Labour Court which are based on the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties do not call for any interference by this Court. No illegality has been committed by the Labour Court which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, I dismiss the same. April 30, 2009 poonam ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No