A F FERGUSON AND CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the management and the workman have preferred appeals against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in WP (C) No. 2649/2002 dated December 15, 2006.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the appeals are as under:-

(3.) THE designation of the workman was Executive Secretary and she was attached to shri Ashok Behl, Director. The workman claimed that she performed tasks like taking shorthand dictation, typing on electronic typewriter or computer, handling of correspondence, fixing of appointments, attending to filing work, handling petty cash and handling of operation of PABX Board etc. Therefore, she is covered under the definition of "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s)of the Industrial Disputes Act. Her work and conduct throughout her service was satisfactory and the management was never given a chance for any complaint whatsoever. The management, however, abruptly terminated her services without any rhyme or reason with effect from March 10, 1992 and asked her to collect three months" salary in lieu of the three months" notice as mentioned in the employment agreement. As the termination of services was illegal, she made representations to the management vide letter dated February 28, 1992 and March 20, 1992. The management did not reply to any of her letters but extended her service upto March 31, 1992. Finally, the management terminated her services on april 1, 1992. The workman represented against the termination to the management vide letter dated April 2, 1992 but the same was never replied to by the management. The management had terminated her services because they wanted to get a fresh hand at cheaper rate. The employees junior to her were retained in service while she was retrenched from service in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Neither one month's notice in writing as provided under Section 25-F was given to her nor she was paid retrenchment compensation. Three months pay was paid to her only on June 2, 1992 whereas her services were terminated on April 1, 1992. She, therefore, contended that termination of her services is illegal and unjustified.