IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3752 of 2011 Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Satwinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda dated 8.9.2010. An industrial dispute was raised under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the following effect :- “Whether termination of services of workman Smt.Satwinder Kaur is justified and in order, if not so, to what relief is she entitled ?” The petitioner pleaded that she was employed as Clerk on 1.3.1990 on a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- but her services were terminated by the respondent No.2 on 14.5.1995/12.8.1995 without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry or compensation. C.W.P.No.3752 of 2011 -2- The respondent No.2 took up the plea that the claim of the petitioner is not justified and admitted that she was employed as a Junior Clerk but her services were terminated on 12.8.1995 with effect from 14.5.1995. She was initially working in Khuban branch but was transferred and directed to join another branch at Abhun. After she was relieved, she did not join at Abhun branch nor she informed the respondent No.2. Letters were sent to her but she failed to join her duties. Thereupon they published a notice in the newspapers but there was no response from the petitioner. Apart from this, it is stated that at the time of joining the bank she had produced fake certificates and a complaint was received by them in this regard. It was pointed out in the complaint that the petitioner had not passed Punjabi up to Matric standard which was the eligibility condition for appointment of Junior Clerk. A letter was sent to the petitioner to produce the original certificates, which she failed to produce. Thereupon her services were terminated. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had abandoned her services and also concluded that the certificate produced by the petitioner was fake and fabricated. Aggrieved by the said award, learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition has stated that no regular enquiry was conducted to establish whether the certificate was fake or not and in the absence of any such enquiry the material submitted by the management could not be held against the petitioner. It is further contended that there is material to show and suggest that the petitioner had not been served and that whatever notices were sent to C.W.P.No.3752 of 2011 -3- her were at the old address from which an inference can be drawn that she was not aware of the proceedings against her. On due consideration, I find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are misplaced and deserve to be rejected. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk. She was working in a particular branch and transferred to another branch at Abhun where she did not join despite repeated letters and entreaties by the respondent No.2. Since 9.5.1995 the petitioner failed to report for duty, a notice was also set up in the newspapers asking her to come and join, which failed to elicit any response. It is nowhere pleaded and proved by the petitioner that she had made an attempt to join at the new place of posting and was prevented to do so by the respondent No.2. The plea of the petitioner that she has not been served with any notice does not find favour for the reason that proper publication has also been made. Such a publication, which is a notice to the general public, is a manifestation of the endeavour of the employer to get the employee to report for duty. It is thus the petitioner who had failed to respond to the call of respondent No.2 for duty, which tantamounts to abandonment of service. In such eventuality when there is overwhelming material to show that the petitioner herself abandoned the service, she cannot turn around to plead that the respondent -management is at fault and thereby raise an industrial dispute even if the other question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the finding of the fake certificate being unjustified in the absence of the enquiry is accepted, then also in C.W.P.No.3752 of 2011 -4- view of the fact that the petitioner had abandoned her services. this court is of the opinion that no indulgence can be granted to her. Dismissed. 3.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss