MARIA THOMS GONSALVIES Vs. CONCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners in their Petitions respectively are aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 218 of 1997 referred by the State of maharashtra for adjudication of the Industrial dispute raised by the workman challenging the order of termination dated August 27, 1986 and demanding reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) BOTH the parties filed their pleadings and adduced their respective documentary and oral evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour court framed two issues on the basis of the pleading that (1) whether the second party is a workman as contemplated under Industrial disputes Act? and (2) whether her services were illegally terminated? On the first issue the Labour court recorded affirmative finding that the second parry was a workman under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The employer company has challenged this finding of the Labour Court in the above petition. On the second issue the Labour court has held that the termination of the workman was not illegal on the basis of his finding the Labour Court has rejected the reference. The workman has challenged the second finding of the Labour Court rejecting her reference without granting any relief to her.

(3.) BOTH the learned advocates for their respective parties have taken me through the whole mesh of oral and documentary evidence as if I was hearing first appeal against the award of the Labour Court. The facts are very simple. The workman was taken with effect from November 6, 1984 as a Trainee for a consolidated stipend of Rs. 450/- per month. In the aforesaid letter dated November 6 1984 it was made clear that she was offered a position of Trainee for a consolidated stipend of Rs. 450/- per month and that she will not claim any lien for her appointment nor shall claim permanency to the post and that she will be governed by the rules and regulations of the Company. The workman accepted the said order. It further appears that there was a communication from the head of the department Shri S. P. Tripathi on Oct9ber 30, 1985 that her performance was not satisfactory and he suggested that on completion of training period on November 5, 1985 the Trainee should be discontinued, in that report he has pointed out that she was not doing proper work in the despatch section inspite of repeated reminders to her. He has also recorded that she was sending letters to wrong sections and wrong officers and wrong persons and that he had received complaints continuously from the depots, field force as wrong letters were sent to them. It was therefore, requested by the head of the despatch section that the workman should be removed from the organisation in order to avoid further problems.