FORBES GOKAK LTD Vs. NAFISA G SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17/04/2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the order of the Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% back wages.

(2.) It is not in dispute that in terms of the order of the Labour Court, the respondent is reinstated in service and in view of the interim order passed in this appeal, 50% of the back wages were deposited by the appellant in this Court and the said amount is withdrawn by the respondent after furnishing security.

(3.) The respondent was employed with the appellant when her services were terminated on 23/07/1990. A reference in respect of the order of termination was made before the Labour Court and the 10th Labour Court, Mumbai had answered the reference in favour of the respondent after holding that the services of the respondent could not have been terminated. It was the case of the appellant that in December 1988, the respondent had availed the maternity leave that was granted to her till March 1989. The respondent had sought for the extension of the maternity leave for 51 days but the said extension was not granted. When the respondent was asked to present herself before the medical board-doctors of the appellant company, it is the case of the appellant that the doctors had opined that she could resume her duties. It is stated that the respondent however, produced the medical certificate showing that she required rest till her recovery. Certain communications were exchanged between the appellant and the respondent and by the order dated 23/07/1990, the services of the respondent were terminated without serving the charge-sheet on her and without conducting any departmental enquiry. On an appreciation of the material on record, the Labour Court held that the appellant was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent without holding an enquiry. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court directed the appellant to pay 50% back wages to the respondent. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 17/04/2006.