D.A.V. SENIOR SECONDARY Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the management/DAV School assailing the Award dated 17.10.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.55/12/12. Under the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court after holding that the respondent's services were illegally terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 14.07.2011, had directed the petitioner to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent. The Labour Court has further directed that in case the aforesaid compensation is not paid within one month from the date of publication, the same would carry an interest @ 9% p.a.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had not been terminated by the petitioner but had herself abandoned services on 14.07.2011; notwithstanding its categorical statement before the Labour Court that it was ready and willing to accept the services of the respondent and she could come back and rejoin her duty, the respondent did not join back at the petitioner school. He further submits that the petitioner had even sent two letters by post to the respondent requiring her to join back on duty, to which she failed to respond. He, therefore, contends that the impugned Award holding her termination to be illegal and directing payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as lumpsum compensation to her is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside by this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned Award, submits that the petitioner had taken wholly false pleas which have been rightly rejected by the Labour Court after considering the evidence led by the parties. He submits that the petitioner's claims that they had sent two letters by speed post to the respondent/workman to join duty could not be proved before the Labour Court. He further submits that the petitioner had deliberately withheld the record, not only at the initial stage but also during the conciliation proceedings and before the Labour Court at the time of adjudication of the industrial dispute. He submits that the respondent was always willing to join back duty and it is only the petitioner who did not permit the respondent to permit her to do so. He, therefore, that the writ petition be dismissed.