MANJU RANI Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the dispute raised by her directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of her services by the respondent has been decided against her and it has been held that her services had not been illegally terminated.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that she had got employment with the respondent on 19th June, 2002 and she was posted at Hindu Rao Hospital as a Kitchen Attendant vide office order No.748/AO(H)EC(E)/2002 dated 19.06.2002 and she had been working there continuously up to 30th April, 2006. However, with effect from 1st May, 2006 her services were terminated by the respondent on the allegation that she had obtained appointment fraudulently on the basis of fake documents. She then challenged the said decision of the respondent by filing a writ petition (being WP(C) No.5041/2008) in this Court and this Court had allowed that writ petition and directed her reinstatement in service, vide order dated 16.07.2008 relying upon an earlier decision dated 09.07.2007 of a Single Judge Bench in WP(C ) No. 8268-85/2006 whereby many workmen whose services had been terminated by MCD because of their also having procured entry in MCD on the basis of fake documents were ordered to be reinstated in service with half of back wages since even show cause notice was not given to them by MCD before terminating their services. THE MCD was, however, given the liberty to hold enquiries and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. THE MCD had challenged that order before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the LPAs in those cases where no show cause notices were issued for the dismissed employees, as is the case of the present workman. THE respondent then reinstated the petitioner herein and other workers on 12th September, 2008. However, while reinstating her in service she was also simultaneously served with a notice to show cause as to why her services be not terminated because of her having obtained the job fraudulently by producing fake documents. THE petitioner submitted her reply to that show cause notice in which she denied that she had submitted any forged or fake documents and claimed that she had not committed any fraud and she was in fact appointed lawfully. THE respondent did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and vide its impugned office order dated 19th January, 2009 terminated the petitioners services with immediate effect. THEreafter, the petitioner served upon the respondent a demand notice dated 20th February, 2009 claiming that her services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without holding an enquiry. She requested the respondent for taking her back on duty but since that demand was not accepted she approached the Labour Court directly with a claim petition under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which also her grievance was that her services had been illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 76, 77 & 78 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. THE Labour Court issued notice of the claim petition of the petitioner to the respondent which entered appearance and contested the petitioners claim on the ground that the letter dated 19th June, 2002 based on which the petitioner had got herself posted at the Hindu Rao Hospital was a forged document and that forgery had come to light during audit proceedings.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner examined herself as her sole witness in support of her claim and from the side of the respondent-management also only one witness was examined and after considering the evidence adduced from both the sides the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioners claim and came to the conclusion that since the petitioner had got herself posted at Hindu Rao Hospital on the basis of forged posting order no employer-employee relationship comes into existence and there was no violation in complying with the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before getting rid of her.