Simarjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 03.09.2001 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, vide which the reference made on the demand notice submitted by the petitioner has been answered against her while holding her not entitled to any benefit.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit dated 13.02.1981, which is made the basis for terminating the service of the petitioner, is not a part of the record and the said document has not been produced or proved by the respondents before the Labour Court and, therefore, the termination of the service of the petitioner is not in accordance with law as the allegation made against the petitioner cannot be sustained. In fact the affidavit submitted was dated 18.02.1981 which was not taken note of.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the Labour Court had dealt with this aspect and had considered the non-production of the affidavit on record in detail. The reasons for non-production of the said document are clearly spelt out on the basis of the evidence, which has been led by the respondents and, accordingly, the finding has been given that the said affidavit was got removed by the petitioner from the service record with the help of the co-workers, which led to the non-production of the same before the Labour Court. Counsel for the respondents further contends that in the departmental enquiry, which was held against the petitioner, she had categorically admitted the guilt with regard to having given a wrong affidavit at the initial stage. However, subsequently another affidavit was filed, wherein she had stated about her correct matrimonial status. After having admitted the guilt, the charges were proved against her and, accordingly, the competent authority, on consideration of the enquiry report, had passed the order of her termination, which is in accordance with law.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

The workman-petitioner was married to one Sh. Makhan Singh. At the time of her joining the service, initially she gave an affidavit wherein she had stated that she is unmarried. Subsequently, she gave another affidavit that she is married to one Sh. Makhan Singh of Village Samrai, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. When two contradictory affidavits were placed on record, an enquiry was held wherein it transpired that Makhan Singh was already a married man and had children from her wife and the marriage still subsisted and was a valid marriage. Accordingly, the petitioner was charge-sheeted as the conduct of the petitioner was not in consonance with the conduct of the employees Rules, which is applicable to the Government employees. Further, the initial information, which was given by her, was found to be totally incorrect and the subsequent affidavit also showed that she was already married to a person who had already a living wife, therefore, the second marriage was not in accordance with law. In the enquiry, which was held against the petitioner, she had admitted her guilt. That being so, the termination order passed by the competent authority was in accordance with law.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit, which is made the basis for terminating the service of the petitioner, was not on record of the case, cannot be accepted as a perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court leaves no manner of doubt that the Labour Court had dealt with this aspect in detail and on the basis of the documentary evidence and the other evidence on record and on consideration of the same, had come to a right conclusion that the said affidavit was got removed by the petitioner in connivance with some of the officials of the department just to help her out of that situation.

On a categoric question put by this Court as to whether after the petitioner having come to know that Sh. Makhan Singh had duped her and had misled her to get married to her by stating that he has taken divorce from his wife, has the petitioner taken any action against Sh. Makhan Singh? To this, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that no criminal or civil action was taken. Neither any criminal complaint was filed against Sh. Makhan Singh nor any divorce petition was filed by the petitioner for nullifying her marriage with Sh. Makhan Singh.

The early hearing application i.e. C.M. No. 1988 of 2010 dated 15.02.2010 preferred by the petitioner is supported by an affidavit, wherein she has stated that she is a widowed lady as her husband has expired on 21.01.2003. She is left with no resources to maintain herself and her three daughters. In the affidavit she has described herself as widow of Sh. Makhan Singh. The petitioner had come to know of the fraud played by Makhan Singh in 1981 when she filed her second affidavit but still she continued to stay with him as his wife and two more daughters were born to her from the loins of Makhan Singh, whom she knew was a already married man with children from his wife and which marriage was still subsisting. The defence taken by her in the departmental proceedings and the Labour Court was a farce and an attempt on her part to mislead and misguide everyone. All this shows the conduct of the petitioner.

The learned Labour Court has considered and discussed all contentions raised and evidence, both documentary and oral, led by the parties in detail and returned well reasoned and correct findings which the counsel for the petitioner could not shake or create a dent thereon.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no merit is found in the present petition which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Labour Court nor is the equity in favour of the petitioner in view of her conduct.

Dismissed.