VASUDEV Vs. MAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Students Information & Guidance Bureau. It was operating at Belgaum. Respondent herein was taken as a Class IV employee. According to the respondent, she was working as a clerk/typist at the time when the petitioner refused to continue her in work. Her grievance before the Labour court was that in the month of May, 1995 she applied for maternity leave, but the Management granted only 4 days leave. After 1 1/2 month from the date of delivery, she went to the office on 20.07.1995 for reporting to duty, but the Management did not allow her to work and asked explanation for her absence. According to her, her services were orally terminated without accepting the information given by her that she had delivered a child and therefore, was compelled to take leave.

(2.) The case of the Management was that the employee had never worked in their establishment on full time basis; the activity of the Management did not fall within the definition of 'industry', there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimant. They also urged that respondent - employee did not apply for maternity leave at any time and that there was no refusal of employment to her.

(3.) The Labour Court framed necessary issues as to whether the claimant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2-S of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether her services were terminated with effect from 20.07.1995 illegally and also regarding her entitlement for the relief sought.