DIRECTORATE OF EUCATION Vs. SMT. MAHENDRI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal on the following terms, "whether the services of Smt. Mahendri W/o Sh. Rohtash Singh have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/ Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect -.

(2.) The Learned Industrial Tribunal after recording of the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the manner in which the services of the workman were terminated without even giving her notice or notice pay, without giving any compensation and without assigning any reason is absolutely illegal being voilative of Section 25F of the ID Act and the principles of natural justice and thus she was entitled to a compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of termination till the date of realization and a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/ -. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Respondent No.1 was never employed by the Petitioner which being a State functionary can only employ the workman as per its rules and regulations. Respondent No.1 was in fact employed by the parents to cater to the daily needs of their small children and they contributed to her salary. Respondent No.1 was never paid from the Government grant and hence there being no employee employer relationship, it cannot be held that the termination was illegal or that the Petitioner was entitled to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/ - with 18% interest. It is further contended that in any case interest @ 18% is very high. The onus to prove the employee -employer relationship was on Respondent No.1, who failed to discharge the same. The only evidence produced was the photocopy of the Identity -card. No appointment letter or terms of appointment or termination notice was ever proved because the same was never given to the Respondent. The I -card was issued for security reasons so that she could have ingress to the school premises. Thus, the impugned award be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. On the terms of reference as stated above, the Industrial Tribunal framed the first issue as to whether the workman/ claimant is not covered within the definition of 'workman' as per Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The onus of proof of the same was on the management. To discharge the said onus the Petitioner/management examined Shri B.N. Bajpayee, Deputy Director, District (South) as MW1. His affidavit Ex. MW1/A stated that Respondent No.1 was never appointed by the Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, G Block, Saket New Delhi as the Principal was not competent to appoint anybody. It was further stated that Respondent No.1 was engaged by the parents for the convenience of the children of small age which is apparent from the letter dated 17th March, 1999 exhibited as MW1/1. The letter dated 17th March, 1999 Ex. MW1/1 is a letter from the Principal, Sarvodaya school to the Petitioner stating that the members of the parents teacher association took the decision that for the convenience of the children they would make their own arrangements and thus the services of Respondent No.1 was engaged. There is no written order or written record in this regard and that when there were holidays Respondent No.1 was not paid anything. Further letter dated 10th October, 2000 also to the same effect was exhibited. In the affidavit, MW1 has also questioned the authenticity of the I -card as only a photocopy thereof has been placed on record. In cross -examination MW1 has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the case and he had brought only relevant record. He further stated that as per the attendance register, the name of Respondent No.1 was not mentioned and it is wrong to suggest that Respondent No.1 was appointed as Aya in the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Saket in 1992 -99. He stated that she was employed by the parents of students. In the cross -examination it is admitted that the Principal had appointed Respondent No.1 as Aya in July, 1992.