KAMLA Vs. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Kamla, the petitioner in this case was appointed as House Aunt ,w. e. f. 03. 06. 1996 with the respondent/management. Her services were terminated by the respondent on 13. 12. 2001. The petitioner approached the Labour court. The Labour Court vide its order dated 7. 5. 2007, awarded a compensation in the sum of rs. 24,650 in lieu of reinstatement of the job, continuity of service and back-wages as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed the instant petition with the prayers that the order of the labour Court be set aside, the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated and the respondent be directed to pay back-wages to her.

(2.) I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. He has also drawn my attention towards cases reported in Lachman das and another v. M/s Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and another, 1977 LAE. IC 823 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in case Department of Social Welfare and others v. Smt. Maya and others in WP (C) No. 6687/2002 decided on 19th July, 2006. The last authority was also cited before the learned Labour court. The said authority was discussed and relied upon by the Labour Court. There was hardly any need to cite this authority before this court. In the first authority reported in Lachman Das and another v. M/s Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) it was held:

(3.) INSTEAD of touching the heart of the problem, the learned defence counsel just skirted it. The above said authority rather supports the case of opposite party. The Labour Court observed: