DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OCTOBER, 2007 whereby Smt. Bimla Devi was held to be a worker and entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Smt. Bimla Devi was appointed as an Aya on 20th July, 1995 on ad-hoc/temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month and she worked thereon till 10th May, 1996. On 1st July, 1996 Smt. Bimla Devi was again appointed as Aya on ad-hoc/temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- which continued till 19th March, 1998 when her services were terminated due to closure of the Nursery Wing in the school. Against the said termination representation was made by Smt. Bimla Devi to the Education Department and the Deputy Education Officer, Zone-1 directed reinstatement of Smt. Bimla Devi. On 6th July, 1998 Smt. Bimla Devi was again allowed to join duty on the post of Aya on daily wages on her agreeing to perform all the duties of Aya. However, thereafter Smt. Bimla Devi failed to report on duty with effect from 27 th August, 1998. The letters sent to her were returned with the endorsement "refused". A dispute was raised on which the following reference was sent "whether the termination of services of Smt. Bimla Devi is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect". Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Smt. Bimla Devi on the other hand contends that the availability of the remedy under the DSE Act does not bar the remedy available under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the ID Act). Smt. Bimla Devi is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and thus entitled to a remedy available before the Industrial Tribunal. In any case the Tribunal got the jurisdiction from the reference sent which order has not been challenged by the management. In the absence of a challenge to the order of reference, the management cannot now raise this issue. Reliance is placed on Appejay School Vs. Darbari Lal & Ors. 170 (2010) DLT 608 and Prabhu Dayal Public School Vs. Prahlad; Jawahar Lal Singh, Arbind Kumar W.P.(C) 3260/1996 decided by this Court on 29th July, 2008. The Learned Tribunal erred in not directing reinstatement of Smt. Bimla Devi and since she has still 10 to 15 years of service to go, she should be directed to be reinstated. In any case the compensation awarded to the claimant Smt. Bimla Devi is too less and is required to be enhanced by this Court.