CHRISTINA DANIEL Vs. LABORU COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, namely, Christina Daniel was working as Nursing Orderly with M/s Jeevan Hospital and Nursing Home (P) Ltd. In May 1987, she joined the organisation of Delhi Hospital and Nursing Home Workers Union. The said Union had made certain demands claiming revision of wages, LTC, higher rate of bonus etc. Those demands were not acceded to by the hospital which resulted in a dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. During the pendency of the reference, the services of Christina Daniel were terminated vide order dated April 11, 1989. The hospital filed an application seeking approval of the order dismissing her from service but did not press the same. Hence, it was dismissed as withdrawn. It seems that inspite of the fact that the approval application was withdrawn, the petitioner was not taken back into service. Therefore, she raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

(2.) The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated August 2, 2002 has held that since the approval application was withdrawn by the Management and as the order terminating the services of the petitioner could not have taken effect without the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination order never became operative. As such, the Tribunal has further held that it was not required to give any finding on the reference made. The writ petition in question has been filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi and Deputy Labour Commissioner respectively to get the award dated August 2, 2002 implemented. Learned counsel appearing for the said respondents submits that they have no role to play insofar as the implementation of the award is concerned because in terms of the award, the petitioner continued to be in service and that she should have approached the hospital to join back. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will approach the hospital within a week from now to join back in service. Learned counsel for the hospital states that the petitioner will be taken back in service and that she should report to Dr. Satinder Sabharwal, who is one of the Directors of the Hospital.

(3.) In view of what has been noticed above, nothing survives in the writ petition. The petitioner shall approach the hospital for joining and respondent shall take her back in service. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner feels that there is still some area of dispute between her and the hospital, she will be at liberty to seek her remedy as per law. The writ petition is disposed of.