SAROJ GUPTA Vs. GAUTAM ENTERPRISES AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 03.03.2003 passed in I. D. no.264/1992 by the presiding officer of Labour Court no.1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in the matter arising out of reference made by Secretary (Labour) of the erstwhile Delhi Administration (predecessor-in-interest of Government of NCT, Delhi) vide notification no.F.24(1499)/92- Lab./166-62 dated 26.06.1992 under Sections 10(1) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the workman brought this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, praying, inter-alia, for the said award dated 03.03.2003 to be quashed, the operation of the order awarding compensation in the same of Rs.20,000/- to be stayed and for a direction to be issued to the first respondent (management) to reinstate her in its service with full back wages from the date of termination of her service (01.06.1991).

(2.) The pleadings, documents on the file and the record of proceedings before the Labour Court reveal that the petitioner was employed as a clerk in the employment of the first respondent, last wages drawn being in the sum of Rs.1385/- per month. The petitioner claimed that she had been initially inducted in service with wages payable in the sum of Rs.400/- per month from May 1985 to December 1990. The management, on the other hand, pleaded that she had been engaged as a clerk, initially under training only w.e.f. 09.05.1988. The dispute as to the date from which the employment had commenced was never pressed as an issue of fact at any stage. Be that as it may, in the award, the labour court accepted the case of the management that the petitioner was employed only w.e.f. 09.05.1988. This, even otherwise, is in sync with what was her assertion in the affidavit submitted in the course of enquiry before the labour court, wherein she referred to her employment for the preceding three years. Thus, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he is not in a position to claim employment to be from any date anterior to 09.05.1988.

(3.) In the pleadings before the labour court, the management had claimed that the petitioner, having been engaged to attend to the calls of the consumers for booking for refilling of cylinders, there were complaints as to her conduct vis-a-vis the consumers/callers. But, during the inquiry, no evidence was led in this regard nor any issue pressed for adjudication. Even otherwise, the said conduct (or misconduct) was not an issue arising between the parties since that was not the reason why the services of the petitioner were terminated.