M.C.D. Vs. RAJNI SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.04.2001, passed in ID No.14/1998 by the Industrial Tribunal. Vide this award, the Industrial Tribunal has held that Kumari Rajni Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ' the workman') is entitled to be reinstated as LDC/Typist instead of Beldar in terms of award dated 09.10.1995, passed by Shri Nepal Singh, in ID No. 105/88.

(2.) The brief history of the case is that the workman was in the employment of the petitioner. She had been appointed as a muster roll/ daily rated/casual worker with effect from 10.06.1986. Her services were terminated with effect from 18.08.1987 and she raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, and was registered as ID No. 105/1988.

(3.) In the said industrial dispute, the workman had contended that although she was appointed as a daily rated/muster roll/casual worker with effect from 10.06.1986, she had been working as a LDC/Typist under Shri D.K. Chablani, Superintendent in the Office of Shri O.P. Aggarwal, Executive Engineer, Quality Control Circle, during the periods from 10.06.1986 to 13.12.1986 and 14.12.1986 to 21.06.1987 and was paid the wages of a skilled worker for that period, calculated as per the Minimum Wages Act. She had also contended that thereafter with effect from 01.07.1987, she had been paid wages of unskilled Beldar under the Minimum Wages Act. She had also raised several other contentions, including that although she was working as a clerk-cum-typist, but she was shown in the muster roll as Beldar and while her counterparts were given the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 of LDC/Typist, she had been paid the wages as per Minimum Wages Act. She served a notice demanding parity and regularization. According to her contention, this annoyed the ManagementDTC and the Management-DTC, i.e., the petitioner thereafter terminated her services. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the workman had abandoned her services and that she was serving as a daily wager from 15.09.1986 up to 13.12.1986 in the office of Ex-Engineer as Mortar Man and was paid wages prescribed for the unskilled workers. From 15.12.1986 to 30.06.1987, she had worked as a daily wager LDC in the office and from 15.07.1987 to 14.08.1987 as daily wager Beldar and accordingly she was paid. It is also submitted that she had no case for regularization. The Labour Court found that the services of the workwoman were terminated and the termination was illegal and issued following directions:-