DEEPALI CHUGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR (SOUTH ASIA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 31st August, 2015 passed by the learned Labour Court in LIR No.266/13. Vide the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court, while holding that the petitioner was a workman, has rejected her claim that her services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent/Management. The learned Labour Court, however, has held that the petitioner is entitled to receive a further sum of Rs.96,820/- from the respondent/Management towards special bonus and, therefore, directed the respondent to pay the said amount to her along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of her termination.

(2.) The brief facts emerging from the record that are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition may be noted at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as a Receptionist/Secretary in the respondents office at Delhi on 5th November, 1996. Her services were terminated w.e.f. 7th July, 2012 pursuant to the respondents letter dated 7th June, 2012, whereby she was informed that in accordance with the terms of her employment contract, compensation in the below mentioned terms would be paid to her by electronic transfer or cheque on or about the usual monthly pay roll date :-

(3.) Thus, compensation amounting to Rs.17,11,487/- was accordingly remitted to the petitioners account on 9th August, 2012. Soon thereafter, she served a legal notice on the respondent seeking her reinstatement in service, wherein she did not raise any grievance regarding the remittance of the compensation amount being delayed in any manner, but claimed that she had been treated in a discriminatory manner and had not received the compensation which had been orally promised to her. The respondent sent a reply to the said notice stating that the petitioner having unconditionally accepted the compensation amount of of Rs.17,11,487/- paid to her as per the terms of her appointment, she was estopped from challenging her termination. Consequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute claiming that despite there being no allegation against her, her services had been illegally terminated by the respondent even though persons junior to her had been retained in service. The industrial dispute was then referred to a Labour Court, under the following terms of referrence:-