REX HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. ROSELINE ROZARIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, in I.D.No.39 of 2000, dated 18.07.2002.

(2.) THE petitioner is the management of Rex Higher Secondary School and for convenience (hereinafter referred to as the "Management"). THE first respondent hereinafter referred as the employee raised the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.39 of 2000 and the management has filed this writ petition, challenging the award of reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service and backwages.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the employee would contend that this Court should not re-appreciate the factual finding and come to a different conclusion than arrived at by the Labour Court, which was done after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and the award of the Labour Court having been rendered giving reasons deserves to be sustained. THE learned counsel would further submit that when there is a direction to report for duty, the management is required to offer the same post, in which the employee was working and she cannot be compelled to do a different work and if, she refuses to do the other work, it cannot be stated, she disobeyed the directions. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Mills Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. Labour Court and another 1997 3 LLN 354. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the employee being a permanent employee of the management, her services cannot be dispensed with without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination of service is bad in law. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Deep Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradsh and another, 2001 3 LLN 820. Further, the learned counsel would submit that this Court has a duty to interpret statues with social welfare benefits in such a way as to achieve the goal of the statue and not to frustrate it and the Court has to take a sympathetic view towards the plight of the employees and in support of the said proposition, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192. Further, the learned counsel made elaborate submissions on facts by referring to the counter filed by the management before the Labour Court. THE learned counsel would submit that even the management has stated in the counter that the employees duties were like that of an ayah and with such vague averments, the management cannot sustain their action. Further, the Labour Court having found that the employee was a nursing assistant, the management is bound to reinstate her in the said position and she cannot be compelled to do any other work, other than that of nursing assistant. Further, by relying upon the reply given by the management dated 02.12.2003, it is submitted that the management themselves admitted that because of the fall in strength of the students, the question of creating a sick room does not arise and therefore, she was directed to do the other work along with the co-employee Stella and this itself establishes and she was working as nursing assistant. Sofar as the certificate produced by the employee, Exhibit W-1, it is submitted that the management is advancing a new case, which was not pleaded before the Labour Court and in the absence of any cross examination, regarding the certificate such new plea cannot be allowed to be raised. On the above grounds, the learned counsel sought for prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.