SUGANDHA SUNIL Vs. BHARATI VIDYAPEETH LADIES HOSTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions arise out of similar set of facts and evidence. As the issues involved are similar and arise from the similar, they are being decided together by this common judgment. In the interest of convenience, facts in Writ petition No. 6790 of 2013 are treated as lead petition.

(2.) These writ petitions have been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dtd. 2/7/2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.620 of 2004. The circumstances giving rise to the present proceedings may be briefly stated. A reference came to be made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune under Sec. 10(1)(c) read with Sec. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the said reference, adjudication was sought on the following demand: "Whether Smt. Shobha Laxman Kamthe is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and with full back wages for the intervening idle period with effect from 30/11/2003."

(3.) The petitioner filed her statement of claim at Exhibit 4. It was stated that she had been working as a sweeper for approximately eleven years and that her last drawn wages were Rs.1,500.00 per month. According to her, she was assigned duties in the ladies' hostel known as "A" Block, where she was required to clean the rooms, passages, toilets, and bathrooms. She further asserted that such work was carried out under the instructions of the Chief Rector, Smt. Alka Shinde, and that she was also required to perform other duties as directed by the concerned officers. The petitioner further contended that she was paid wages below the prescribed minimum wages and that several statutory benefits were denied to her. In order to pursue these grievances, she joined the Pune Majdoor Sabha. It was stated that the Union addressed a letter dtd. 12/4/2002 raising demands relating to payment of minimum wages and other labour related issues. Though there was a revision of wages in July 2002, the petitioner alleged that even thereafter the wages paid to her were below the minimum wages prescribed under law. According to the petitioner, after she associated herself with the Union and raised the said demands, she was subjected to harassment by the management. She therefore filed Complaint (ULP) No.12 of 2002 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court granted an interim order on 9/1/2003 restraining the management from taking any adverse action against her. However, the said complaint ultimately came to be dismissed on 29/11/2003 on the ground that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.