BALJIT KAUR Vs. THE LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband (Harmail Singh) joined the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) as a driver on 12.11.1981. He first time absented from duty w.e.f. 8.4.1994 to 19.06.1994. He again absented from duty from 01.12.1999 to 24.5.2000 and again from 29.04.2001 to 31.12.2001. These three absent periods led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him culminating into an order of termination of his services. The husband of the petitioner raised an industrial dispute making a feeble attempt to explain his absence on the plea that due to 'unavoidable sickness' and 'circumstances' he could not attend the duties. The Labour Court has held that he was habitual absentee and the enquiry was held against him in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The reference was accordingly answered against the workman vide award dated 13.10.2009. Soon thereafter the petitioner's husband unfortunately passed away on 26.04.2010. The petitioner now impugns the award passed by the Labour Court.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and on completion of service, it is revealed that a counsel put in appearance on behalf of the management-respondent No.2 but no reply was filed nor the learned counsel appeared later on. Consequently, the Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh put in appearance on 11.05.2011 and requested for adjournment. Today again no one has come forward nor the reply has been filed. There is no justification to adjourn the case further for want of any explanation whatsoever.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record.