SUNITA GUPTA Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISAD SABALGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award, Annexure P-l, dated 20/7/2004 passed by the Labour Court in Case No. 45/I.D.Act/ 2001 (Reference).

(2.) The petitioner was engaged as daily wager employee w.e.f. 01.09.1998. She pleaded that she had been working as Moharrir up to 1st May 1999. Thereafter, she was transferred to health branch and worked up to October 1999. She was again transferred to Revenue Branch and where she worked up to 13.03.2000. Thereafter, her services were orally terminated by the Chief Municipal Officer. The petitioner made a complaint to the appropriate Government against her termination from service. The matter was ceased in conciliation and after failure of conciliation proceedings the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated - 7.03.2001 made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) In her deposition before the Labour Court the petitioner stated that she was engaged on daily wage basis on 01.09.1998 and worked as Moharrir. Thereafter, she was transferred to health branch and revenue branch and by an oral order her services were terminated w.e.f. 13.03.2000. She also produced copy of the service- book as Ex.P-1, in which it was certified that the petitioner had been working as Clerk from 01.09.1998 to 26.07.99. The Chief Municipal Officer also issued a certificate, Ex.P-2 certifying that the petitioner had been working w.e.f. 23.09.98 to 26.07.99. Similar certificate was issued by the Municipal Council, Ex.P-2 and as per note-sheet, Ex.P-6, it is clear that the petitioner had been in the employment of respondent No.1 in June 1999. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had worked up to 26th July 1999, however, the Labour Court further held that the petitioner had worked only for four months w.e.f. 14.03.99 to 26.07.99, hence the petitioner has failed to prove that the petitioner had worked for 240 days in twelve months prior to 13.03.2000, therefore, there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner.