The courts emphasized the importance of considering legal and factual aspects of the case in determining unfair labour practice and termination issues.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in a complaint (ULP) No. 261/2000 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 48/2003 whereby the Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner which order was confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts which are relevant for the purpose of dec'-Hng this petition are as under :-

( 4 ) THE petitioner was working with respondent No. 1 as Assistant from 24-11-1980. Her services were confirmed in 1981. The respondent No. 1 company has various branches in India and when the petitioner was appointed, it was specifically stated in the appointment letter that the petitioner was liable to be transferred to its offices. The company issued a transfer order transferring the petitioner from Dubai to New Delhi by order dated 26th June, 1999. The petitioner was directed to report to the Delhi Office on 12th July, 1999. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order by filing a complaint of Unfair labour Practice before the Industrial Court on 14th September, 1999. The industrial Court stayed the order of transfer.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that though this order of transfer was stayed and the petitioner reported to the Bombay office, she was not assigned any work. On 19th February, 2000, a stay granted by the Industrial Court was vacated by the High Court. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, however, by order dated 3rd March, 2000, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter on 17th July, 2000, the petitioner filed a special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The petitioner made a request for leave on the ground that there was 57 days leave to her credit and stated that her son's examination was to be held in the month of April and she wanted leave. However, her application for leave was rejected.

( 6 ) IT is the case of respondent No. 1 that thereafter two letters were sent asking the petitioner to join the transfer place on 22nd March, 2000, however, it is the case of respondent No. 1 that in spite of receipt of these two letters, she did not report to work. On 24th March, 2000, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the complaint of Unfair Labour practice with the Labour Court in which it was alleged that there was breach of the Standing Orders and victimization of the petitioner by the respondent No. 1. By order dated 30th August, 2002, the complaint was rejected. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision application, however, by order dated 31st march, 2004, the revision application is also rejected. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.

( 7 ) SHRI Vaidya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of termination was punitive in nature which was evident from the admission given by the respondent witness in cross-examination and on account of other material and the facts and circumstances on record and therefore, an enquiry ought to have been held and an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner. He submitted that therefore, the mandatory procedure laid down under the said Act was not followed. The provisions of the standing Orders also were violated. He invited my attention to the order of termination and the findings which were recorded by the Labour Court and the industrial Court as also the complaint, written statement and the notes of evidence of the petitioner and the respondent. He submitted that alternatively, even if it was held that the order of termination was not punitive in nature, even then it amounted to retrenchment and the mandatory provision of section 25f, therefore, even in such a case is required to be followed. He submitted that the labour Court was not justified in reje

Click Here to Read the rest of this document