immediately after her alleged termination. Since the demand notice had been served by respondent No. 2 immediately after her termination, the plea taken by the petitioner management that respondent No. 2 had herself left the job, was rightly disbelieved by the Industrial Tribunal. Rather, it has been noticed by the Tribunal that on earlier occasion also, services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 8.9.2006 and she had moved an application before the Labour Inspector Grade-II, Pathankot on 8.9.2006. In terms of order passed by Labour Inspector Grade-II, respondent No. 2 was reinstated in service. Hence, there was no occasion for respondent No. 2 to have herself left the job. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was caught stealing cardboard boxes on 10.1.2007 by the Security Guard, was not pleaded in the written statement (Annexure P-3). Moreover, the said incident had taken place in January 2007 and respondent No. 2 was allowed to resume her duty. Apparently, at that stage, the petitioner management had not lost confidence in respondent No. 2 and had allowed her to join duty. In these circumstances, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in ordering the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 as the management had lost faith in her, is liable to be rejected.
