ANUSUIYA MESHARAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 15-5-2007 passed by the I Labour Court. Petitioner had indicated in Paragraph 6.2 of her petition that she was working in the Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon between 1987 and 1994 on the basis of stop gap arrangement and pleaded in Paragraph 5.5 that she had worked in Municipal Corporation from May, 1987 to September, 1987 in Typing Department and thereafter from 13th November, 1987 to 12th February, 1988 in Water Resources Department. According to the petitioner, she had worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year and therefore she had right to be reinstated and further claims the same status to be maintained as on the date of terminated from services without any notice or compensation on 18-12-1994.

(2.) IN the year 2005 after a long gap of 9 years of her engagement as stop gap arrangement, petitioner approached the Labour Court for challenging the order of termination of the year 1994. During the argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not stop gap arrangement but she was working as daily wager. Both the arguments of the petitioner would be consider by this Court in background of the stands taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court and before this Court. When the petitioner approached before the Labour Court after a gap of 9 years, she could not substantiate and explain the delay and laches. I further found that the petitioner even could not substantiate that she had worked for 240 days in one calendar year. According to the petitioner her witness had said that she worked for 240 days; no details have been placed by the petitioner, neither before the Labour Court nor before this Court. Even there is no whisper in this petition explaining the delay of 9 years and also that the petitioner had worked out for 240 days in one calendar year. The only detail which has been furnished in this petition is that the petitioner had worked from May, 1987 to September, 1987 and from 13th November, 1987 to 12th February, 1988. Further it has been indicated that the petitioner had worked in the Corporation from May, 1987 to September, 1987 in Typing Department and thereafter from 13th November, 1987 to 12th February, 1988 in another department, i.e., Water Resources Department. Besides this, petitioner has failed to indicate anywhere in her petition that in which department she had completed 240 days. As far as the grounds are concerned petitioner's stand is that she was working in the stop gap arrangement from the year 1987 to 1994. Petitioner was expected to explain the delay as well as her working for 240 days as daily wager which she failed to substantiate. No argument has been advanced as far as delay is concerned. The only argument before this Court is that she has completed 240 days in a calendar year which was supported by the evidence of Suresh Kumar Mesharam and further in support of argument, petitioner relied upon Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. : (2007)1SCC533 . IN the said case, it is held that only because whether an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee or that he had been employed for a number of years, the same by itself may not lead to the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of a permanent employee.

(3.) AT this stage Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no limitation for approaching the Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act. In spite of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed miserably to explain the delay and laches.