GAYATRI GRAM AROGYA MANDAL Vs. NARAYANABEN JASHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is a qualified Doctor and it is the common case of the parties that after inviting applications on 1.4.87 the respondent Dr. Nayanaben Jashbhai Patel was appointed by Gayatri Gram Arogya Mandal at Nanadara as a Medical Officer on a monthly salary of Rs. 2360/-. It is also the common case of the parties that the services of the respondent-Medical Officer were terminated on 9.11.87. The respondent raised the dispute alleging that she had been exploited and victimized because she claimed the salary at par with the salary which is paid to the Medical Officers in the Government service and only for that reason her services were terminated. A grievance was also raised that no salary had been paid to her for certain months and she was told that the amount of grant had not been sanctioned.

(2.) On 9.11.87 a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2000/- was given to the respondent and by an oral order she was sacked from the services. A reference was made for adjudication to the Labour Court, Nadiad. Gayatri Gram Arogya Mandal i.e. present petitioner did not file any reply to the statement of the claim made by the respondent. The notice had also been sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due but the petitioner did not contest the claim. The respondent was examined on oath but nobody turned up on behalf of petitioner for her cross-examination. The petitioner also did not lead any oral evidence whatsoever and nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner even at the time of the final arguments, no evidence was led by the petitioner before the Labour Court. In such circumstances, the Labour Court believed the version of the respondent and granted the relief of reinstatement with backwages. The Award dated 1.2.95 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad the petitioner-Gayatri Gram Arogya Mandal before this Court through this Special Civil Application on several grounds including the ground that Reference before the Labour Court itself was not competent as the respondent was not a workman and the Award should be quashed and set aside on this ground alone.

(3.) In view of the decision of this Court reported in 1988 Lab IC 505, Govindbhai vs. N.K. Desai, wherein a reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3063 of 1986 decided on 18.6.86 whereby the Division Bench found that a Doctor, who was doing part time job for over 18 years, can be easily considered as a workman coming under the definition of 'Workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the honorarium paid will squarely come under the definition of 'wages' under Sec. 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, this case was adjourned granting time to Mr. Soni to cite Supreme Court decision on the point holding that Medical Officer is not a workman. On 20.3.97 when the matter came up before this court Mr. Soni cited JT 1996(9) SC 721, Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, and the Rule was issued while staying the operation of the Award in the meantime. The respondent has filed the reply seeking to traverse the claim of the petitioner.