IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 CWP-18474-2013 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 SANTOSH DEVI -PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, GURGAON & ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The reference which was sent under clause (c) sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act'), was answered against the petitioner-workman vide Award dated 07.03.2013 (Annexure P-2), by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') (respondent no.1), which has been put to challenge through the instant petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough, the latter concerned found that it is not a case of termination from service, rather, the petitioner herself did not join her duties, upon her being transferred from Gurgaon plant to Okhla (Delhi)

plant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making an attempt to throw challenge to the impugned Award, submits that before terminating the services of the present petitioner, no in-house inquiry was conducted. Further, the petitioner was working as a helper, therefore, she cannot be transferred from Gurgaon plant to any other plant.

3. He further submits that there is a complete violation of principles of natural justice, and even no compliance of Section 25-F and 25-G of the ID Act, has been made on the part of respondent no.2- Management, and this aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while answering the reference against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2–Management submits that it is an open-and-shut case, wherein, the petitioner after her transfer, chose not to join her duties. He also contends that the management never terminated her services, therefore, the question of any infraction of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, or of any other provision, including the principles of natural justice does not arise at all.

5. He, in addtion, submits that even during the conciliation proceedings, respondent no. 2–Management, offered the petitioner an opportunity to join her duties at the new place of posting, i.e., the Okhla plant. However, she chose not to join there and instead contested the claim petition, which was rightly decided against her through the impugned Award

6. Before this Court embark upon the rival submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, it is imperative to have a glimpse upon the facts qua which there is no wrangle between the parties concerned, which are as under:-

i. The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Helper on dated 26.11.2002 by respondent no. 2- Management. She served from 27.11.2002 to 26.03.2007 at the Gurgaon plant. However, on 26.03.2007, she was transferred from her then place of posting, i.e., the Gurgaon plant, and was directed to report at the Okhla plant on 28.03.2007. She failed to comply with the transfer order. The last drawn salary of the petitioner-workman was Rs.2,485 per month.

ii. Considering the transfer order as an act of termination, the petitioner raised the claim, which consequently referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act, which was finally, answered against the petitioner-workman, vide Award dated 07.03.2013.

7. This Court has examined the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties, as well as the entire record and the impugned order.

8. As per the record, the petitioner-workman, was transferred from the present place of posting, i.e. Gurgaon plant, on 26.03.2007, with a specific direction to report at Okhla plant on 28.03.2007. The petitioner-workman stepped into the witness-box as PW1, and did not refute the suggestions regarding receipt of the transfer order, rather spe