R.M.X JOSS Vs. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 20.2.2003 whereby the learned Tribunal answered the reference in favor of the work -woman and held that she was entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service with full back wages. However, the work -woman had already been taken on duty w.e.f. 2.12.1999 during the pendency of the award, so the work -woman was held entitled for full back wages from 31.7.1988 to 1.12.1999. The management has challenged the validity of granting full back wages to the work -woman.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as a helper. She absented from duty and after being absent for about two months she sent a a letter along with fitness certificate on 11th July, 1988 stating that she was fit to resume duty however, she would be joining duty on 31st July, 1988. She alleged that she went to join duty on 31st July, 1988 but she was not allowed to join duty. She then approached the Labour Inspector, who accompanied her on 4th August, 1988 but she was not allowed to join duty in presence of the Labour Inspector. She served a notice on the management on 4th August, 1988 itself. She approached Conciliation Officer, who fixed the date of hearing as 29th August, 1988. On 29th August, 1988, the management did not appear. On next date of hearing i.e. 12th September, 1988, the management replied that they have taken her on duty with continuity in service but left open the question of payment of back wages. The work -woman alleged that after taking her on duty the management had started harassing her due to which her health deteriorated. She again went on leave for two days on 17.9.1988 seeking permission from Mr. Rakesh of the management. When she returned to join on 20.9.1988, the management again refused to take her on duty and then she wrote a letter to the management on 23.9.1988, to which the management did not reply. On 14.10.1988 before the Conciliation Officer, the management showed their inability to give her duty and wages so industrial dispute to the following effect was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:

(3.) THE Tribunal observed that the plea of the management that the respondent had herself abandoned the job was not proved and it was the management who had terminated the services of the work -woman.