IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20296 of 2006. Date of Decision : March 02, 2009. Smt. Madhu Rani Bansal. .... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer,Labour Court-I,Faridabad,and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Kunal Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 02.05.2006 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad, vide which a finding has been recorded against the petitioner- workman that there was a domestic inquiry held against her and provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have not been violated, ultimately leading that the termination of the workman was not illegal and the reference was answered against the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that she was not associated with the inquiry and therefore, an ex-parte inquiry, which was held against the petitioner-workman, cannot be sustained. He further contends that as there was a dispute between the respondent-management and C.W.P. No. 20296 of 2006. the petitioner-workman which was going on, provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act would come to the help of the petitioner-workman and without complying with the provisions, the services of the petitioner- workman could not have been dispensed with. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-management has referred to the findings recorded by the Labour Court on issue No. 1 which pertains to the question as to whether fair and proper domestic inquiry was held or not. He contends that the petitioner-workman did not participate in the inquiry despite of her being informed of the dates fixed before the Inquiry Officer on which she has appended her signatures. In her statement before the Labour Court, she has accepted that she was aware of the inquiry proceedings. The chargesheet bears her signatures and even on one occasion, she had infact appended her signatures before the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry proceedings. He further contends that even a publication in the newspaper was made with regard to inquiry going against the petitioner- workman and she was required to attend the same but despite that the petitioner-workman chose not to participate in the inquiry. Left with no other option, the respondent-management has proceeded to hold ex-parte inquiry and thereafter proceeded when inquiry officer found the proof of guilty against her and the management-respondent has proceeded further to dismiss the petitioner-workman from service. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as impugned award. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act relates to cases and its applicability is restricted to cases where during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or a Board or any -2- C.W.P. No. 20296 of 2006. proceedings before an Arbitrator or Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of Industrial Disputes Act is pending. It is an admitted position on behalf of counsel for the petitioner that no such proceeding before any of these authorities is pending. What he contends is that such a dispute was pending between the respondent-management and the petitioner-workman, and therefore, the petitioner-workman would be entitled to protection of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and since Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with, therefore, the termination of the petitioner-workman was in violation of this provision and is unsustainable. This contention of counsel for the petitioner- workman cannot be accepted as Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act itself restricts the applicability of this provision to the proceedings pending before the authorities specified above. As regard the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the workman has not been given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry nor was she informed about the pending proceedings, the documents and the evidence in the form of statements produced before the Labour Court clearly prove that infact the petitioner-workman was duly informed and indicated about the pending inquiry proceedings as she has been issued chargesheet Ex. M.17 which bears her signatures. The information regarding the date fixed for the hearing Ex.M.13 also bears her signatures. She has herself in her cross-examination before the Labour Court admitted that she was aware of the inquiry proceedings before the inquiry officer and it has also been proved on record that proper publication in the newspaper was also issued calling upon the petitioner-workman to participate in the inquiry. All these go to show beyond doubt that proper opportunity was given to the petitioner- -3- C.W.P. No. 20296 of 2006. workman to participate in the inquiry and defend herself. Having been given an opportunity and the same having not been availed by the workman, she cannot be allowed to turn around and assert that no proper opportunity was given to her to defend herself that the inquiry was not held in accordance with statute especially when nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court which would show that there was any violation of standing orders while proceeding with the inquiry or while passing an order of termination in pursuance to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. Finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 02, 2009. sjks. -4-