K CHANDRAMMA Vs. LABOUR COURT I HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, since we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and the award in I. D. No. 350 of 1993 dated 24/08/1995 and propose to remit the matter to the Labour Court for re-hearing of the case and disposal of the same in accordance with law, we do not intend to express ourselves in respect of all such matters which are to he gone mto in the proceeding and in respect of which, Labour Court as well as learned single Judge in W. P. No. 30081 of 1995 has recorded some findings.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner-appellant worked under the second and third respondents, who represent the Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board. When she was removed from service and she raised Industrial Dispute, one of the pleas to be decided was whether she worked for a continuous period of 240 days and in view of that, she was entitled to be retained in service until action was taken in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, Learned Single Judge has observed as follows :

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant has been working as a Sweeper under the control of the third respondent and she is an illiterate woman. Courts in India have on the rule of evidence enshrined in Secs. 101 and 102 in Chapter 7 of the Evidence Act, have taken the view that pardanashin women belonging to some communities as well as illiterate women, for the reason that they transact their business generally through malefolk only, that men always dominated women and that this being the curse always surrounding wonienfolk even though law recognised their independent rights, is challenged to the extent of the application of the principle of non estfactum. A brief history of the rule of non est factum, scriptwn predictum non estfactum sum is narrated by one of us in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. Vardhan v. Pattammal (died) andfour others 1992 LW 209. The rule in this behalf is called out in the said judgrnent as follows :