SUMAN TUTEJA Vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the workman) had challenged her termination from services by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the management) by invoking the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Conciliation proceedings started which ended in failure and the Government of NCT of Delhi, as 'appropriate Government', referred the dispute vide orders dated 14.7.1987 for adjudication to the Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. This reference was decided in favour of the workman as vide award dated 25.11.1999, the learned Labour Court held the termination to be illegal and unjustified and directed reinstatement back in service with continuity of service and full back wages including intervening increments and all other attendant benefits. The management challenged this award by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2011, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition thereby setting aside the award and holding that the termination was valid and justified. This LPA is preferred by the workman against the judgment dated 8.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. Now the facts in detail.

(2.) The workman was appointed as a Stenographer with the management with effect from 16.07.1974 at New Delhi in its Head Office. One of the terms of her appointment stipulated in the appointment letter was that her services could be transferred anywhere in India. She worked in the Head Office at Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi till 01.07.1978. On 01.06.1978, she was transferred from the post of Stenographer to that of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator on her own request. The management has a staff house at 69, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi. Vide order dated 13.02.1986, she was transferred to the said Staff House as according to the management, there was a requirement of Receptionist-cum Telephone Operator there. At that time, she was on maternity leave. Therefore, this transfer order was sent to her by registered post. Subsequent reminders were also sent to her by UPC or by hand. According to the workman, she did not receive any of these orders except letter dated 27.02.1986 which was received by her maid when she was not at home. In the meantime, she had sought extension of leave up to 28.02.1986 which was granted by the management. On 01.03.1986, the workman reported for duty at the Head Office. However, she was not taken on duty as she was told that her place of posting, now, was Staff House at Lajpat Nagar. 02.03.1986 being Sunday, she went to Head Office again on 03.03.1986. Now she was handed over transfer orders dated 03.03.1986. Next day, i.e. on 04.03.1986, she returned for duty at Staff House and requested for re-transfer to Head Office on the ground that Staff House was used as Guest House for outsiders and marriage parties etc. On the following day, i.e. 05.03.1986, she did not join duties. On 06.03.1986, she submitted a leave application for three days which was granted to her. She joined duties on 08.03.1986 till 10.03.1986 at Staff House. However, from 11.03.1986, she again started absenting. During this period, she submitted another representation to the management on 08.03.1986 requesting it to review the transfer order and post her back to the Head Office. This request was specifically rejected on 11.03.1986. She however refused to join the duties at Staff House and vide her letter dated 12.03.1986, she specifically alleged that she was smelling some wrong motives of some of the officials by posting her in the Staff House.

(3.) The management sent letters dated 15.03.1986, 20.03.1986, 24.03.1986 and 27.03.1986 asking her to join duties failing which suitable action would be taken against her. She did not comply with the mandate of those letters and responded vide letter dated 24.03.1986 reiterating that it was not possible for her to report for duty at Staff House. On 25.03.1986, she again made a request that she should be transferred back to the Head Office. This request was again specifically turned down vide letter dated 27.03.1986 and she was asked to join duties within three days of receipt of this letter. The workman did not budge and remained absent. On 09.04.1986, she submitted medical leave for the period from 11.03.1986 to 15.04.1986 enclosing therewith medical certificate dated 31.03.1986.