T YADAMMA Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NRSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Industrial Dispute, on reference, ended in the award of reinstatement in service and consequential benefits to the respondent-appellant. The same has been challenged by the employer before this Court. Learned single Judge has set aside the award on the ground that it is not established that the appellant was in the regular employment of the establishment and thus Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted. Appellant-second respondent in the writ petition has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court. Facts as shown from the record are as follows: According to the appellant, she was appointed as a Sweeper in May 1980 on a monthly salary of Rs.180/-, she was sanctioned maternity leave from 1-12-1985 to 31-3-1986 and after the delivery of a child, when she reported to duty on 1-4-1986, she was not permitted to join. The contention of the employer-writ petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal), however, was that she was never appointed in their organisation as a Sweeper, but she was working as a casual labour in the Construction and Maintenance Division occasionally on daily wages for petty civil works whenever required. She was not a regular worker and she was never paid monthly salary. They also denied of having granted maternity leave as well as that they ever terminated her services. The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, has held that the appellant worked for about five years as casual labour doing the work of sweeping; her plea of continuous service was not contradicted by any evidence on behalf of the respondent-employer. The relevant register said to have been admittedly maintained was not produced and, "It should, therefore, be presumed that her service was continuous". It has on that basis, concluded, "It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner continuously served more than five years but her services orally terminated without holding any enquiry. Such mode of termination amounts to illegal retrenchment contravening Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Either retrenchment notice or compensation was not given to her" and therefore, held that termination of service of the petitioner is illegal.

(3.) Respondent-management, however, has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Aswini Kumar before the learned single Judge and pointed out that in the case of employees engaged on daily wages they have no vested right for appointment on regular basis. Learned single Judge has accordingly held, "since the second respondent was not appointed on regular basis and she was only a casual labour employed on daily wage basis, the question of applicability of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise". Appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition.