SUSHILA DALAL Vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P -14) whereby, the Labour Court, Gurgaon has decided the reference against the workwoman and in favour of the management on the ground that vide earlier order dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure P -12), which is also subject matter of challenge, it was held that before dispensing with the services of the workwoman, the management held a fair and proper domestic inquiry and the said order had become final inter se the parties. The challenge has also been laid to the order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P -13) whereby, the Labour Court had closed the evidence of the workwoman/petitioner due to the absence of the workwoman and her authorized representative and fixed the case for arguments since the management had also closed the evidence by making separate statements.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workwoman was appointed with the respondent -company in the year 1993 on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband who had died in a motor accident. She was charge sheeted on 09.02.2004 on the ground that she was deliberately slowing down the work as a result of which the components began piling up at the station. The Line Incharge had to put one extra person at the station alongwith her to reduce the loss of production and to avoid stoppage of engine assembly. The said extra person had been deployed from 12.01.2004 to 15.01.2004 to avoid loss of production. She was also charge sheeted for threatening the Shift Incharge and the allegations were that her behaviour with the superiors and senior officers of the company had been rude and offensive. In her letter dated 27.01.2004 addressed to the Executive Director, Production, she had also levelled false accusations with the sole intention of maligning the senior officer of the company. For go slow attitude adopted by her, from 17.01.2004, 19.01.2004, 20.01.2004 and 21.01.2004 and as well as till 04.02.2004, she had been suspended on 04.02.2004 and charged accordingly. On the Inquiry Officer being appointed, she filed an application for change of the said Inquiry Officer. Perusal of the inquiry proceedings, which counsel for the petitioner has made referred to, would go on to show that she was not allowed assistance of the co -worker and that the evidence had been examined in the absence of any such assistance and she could not cross examine the co -worker on 09.03.2004 on account of the fact that the inquiry officer had not given the proper opportunity. Thereafter, she filed an application for appointing Sh. Jagtar Singh as co -worker and the inquiry officer asked the department manager to relieve Jagtar Singh for the purpose of inquiry on 15.03.2004. However, the said person was not present on 17.03.2004 and the inquiry officer had further proceeded ahead with inquiry proceedings. The said person then appeared on 20.03.2004 and took the plea that he may be given the time to read the documents. One last opportunity was granted and the inquiry proceedings were fixed for 22.03.2004, on which day, the petitioner -workwoman was not present and produced a medical certificate marked 'H' whereas her coworker Jagtar Singh was present. The inquiry proceedings were postponed to 25.03.2004, on which day again, she was not present and a direction was issued to Jagtar Singh to inform her. On 26.03.2004, Jagtar Singh took the plea that he had gone to her house and she was not at home and her son informed that she had gone to the Court to attend some case. Jagtar Singh submitted that in her absence, he was not ready to cross examine the management witnesses. Accordingly, the inquiry was concluded ex parte and a report was submitted, on the basis of which, the dismissal order has been passed. The Labour Court, vide order dated 13.02.2012, examined all these factors and noticed that the petitioner and her co -worker were absenting on one pretext or the other and had not let the inquiry to proceed and, therefore, it could not be said that the domestic inquiry conducted was not fair and proper and the issue was accordingly decided against the petitioner -workwoman. Thereafter also, none had put in appearance on behalf of the workwoman before the Labour Court and the order dated 06.09.2012 was passed and the evidence of the workwoman was closed and the management also chose to close its evidence. When the matter was decided finally on 11.09.2012, none put in appearance on behalf of the workwoman. Resultantly, the reference was decided against the workwoman.

(3.) IT is also apparent that the workwoman is just wanting to litigate and prolong the dispute as has been noticed above that before the Labour Court, she had remained absent on several occasions and then the award was passed on 11.09.2012. The petitioner chose not to challenge the same expeditiously and the writ petition has been filed on 26.05.2014 belatedly.