PRESIDENT ANDHA MAHILA ASHRAM Vs. J G AJAGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an award of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, dated 22nd March, 1991 made in Reference (IDA) No. 29 of 1985 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust which carries on the work of rehabilitation and relief to destitute women and children at Kolhapur. The Managing Body of the petitioner, inter alia, consisted of Ex-Officio Government Officers like District Probational Officer, the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and the President of the Zilla Parishad. The Secretary of the petitioner was the responsible person or Administrative Head for implementation of the policy decisions taken by the Managing Body. The respondent was employed as full time Superintendent in the service of the petitioner from 3-8-1971 on monthly salary of about Rs. 600/ -. The respondent had put in about ten years of blameless service in the employment of the petitioner. On 5-4-1982 the respondent received a letter from the petitioner intimating that her resignation from service had been accepted in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 14-3-1982 and that she was relieved from service with effect from 6-4-1982. The respondent was further directed to hand over charge to the person named the letter. By her letter dated 6-4-1982 the respondent denied that she had ever resigned from service or that her resignation was tendered orally and accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, maintained that the respondent had resigned from service and forcibly relieved her from work and even impounded her personal belongings which were returned to her after about one year, and that too when the Joint Director of Social Welfare Department, Pune, intervened.

(3.) THE respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service with full back-wages. The dispute was processed under the Act and resulted in Reference (IDA) No. 29 of 1985 being made to the Labour Court at Kolhapur. Before the Labour Court the petitioner contended that its activity did not amount to an industry within the meaning of 2 (j) of the Act and further that the respondent was not employed with it as a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. The petitioner maintained that for her personal grounds such as health and inability to work, the respondent had tendered resignation in the Managing Committee Meeting on 14-3-1982 when she was pulled up for not carrying out certain work properly. The petitioner, therefore, contended that, far from terminating the service of the respondent illegally or unjustifiably, her service had come to an end by her act of voluntary resignation.