TOURISM DEPARTMENT Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /Petitioner approached this Court challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of one Saraswathy, member of second respondent union, with backwages and other consequential benefits from 20.4.1993. Even though notice was received from the Industrial Tribunal, appellant/petitioner did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Union adduced evidence by examining workman and award was passed. It is admitted by the appellant/petitioner that they have received a notice. They also did not apply for setting aside the ex -parte order in time before the Industrial Tribunal as provided under the Rules, in fact, the award was passed after considering the evidence adduced before it.

(2.) SMT . Saraswathy was employed as a sweeper, on daily wage basis from 2.12.1989. She continued the above employment for more than three years. But, she was denied employment w.e.f. 20.4.1993. She was paid Rs.24/ - per day at that time. These facts are not disputed even in the writ petition. It is also not disputed that by terminating the services of Saraswathy, the conditions prescribed under S.25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') were not complied with.

(3.) SECONDLY , it was contended that though Saraswathy was continuously employed from 2.12.1989 on daily basis, she was not given employment from 20.4.1993 as per the terms of employment and hence it is not 'retrenchment ' as defined under S.2(oo) of the Act. She was employed for a contingency and that contingency was over on 20.4.1993 and, therefore, in view of the amendment of S.2(oo) of the Act by inserting sub -clause (bb), her non - employment after 20.4.1993 is not retrenchment. 'Retrenchment ' is defined under S.2(oo) of the Act as follows: