ASHA BHARDWAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh whereby the claim made by the petitioner (workman) for the recovery of Rs. 19,002 -, Rs. 156 -and Rs. 3400/ - from the respondent management has been dismissed, it being hold that the application of the workman was not maintainable Under Sec. 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act).

(2.) The workman is working as Sales Assistant with the Haryana State Hand -loom and Handicrafts Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the Corporation) and he alleged that some unauthorised deductions were made by the management from her salary. She filed an application before the Labour Court Under Sec. 33 -C(2) of the Act seeking to recover the amount deducted from her salary. The application was contested by the management and it was pleaded that the same was not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that an amount of Rs. 8238/ - was deducted from her salary in monthly instalments because there was shortage of goods which were entrusted to her for sale. The loss caused to the Corporation was said to be the result of neglect and default on the part of the workman and, therefore, the recovery effected was sought to be justified. It was further pleaded that the workman had been suspended for some time and disciplinary proceedings initiated against her were still pending and it was only on the conclusion of those proceedings that an order could be passed in regard to the wages payable to her during the suspension period. It is common case of the parties that the workman was suspended on 15.10.1984 and that she was served with a charge -sheet to the effect that she had sold some bed covers and sarees in an improper manner causing loss to the Corporation. While the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of which the Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order imposing the punishment of 'censure' on the workman directing that no further deductions be made from her salary and that the recoveries already made shall not be refunded to her. A copy of this order which is Annexure P -7 to the writ petition was placed on the record of the labour Court as well.

(3.) After recording evidence of the parties and on a consideration thereof, the labour Court came to the conclusion that since the management had held a regular inquiry against the workman on the basis of which an order of punishment had been passed against her, she could not recover any of the amount deducted from her salary, in view of the order of punishment. It was further held that she did not have an existing right on the basis of which she could maintain an application Under Sec. 33 -C(2) of the Act. The application was accordingly dismissed and it is this order that is now under challenge in this petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution.