M P HOUSING BOARD Vs. JYOTI CHITNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders of Industrial Court dated 10. 11. 2005 Annexure-P/5 and Labour Court dated 13. 10. 2004 Annexure-P/7. The respondent no. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis on 23. 1. 1992. She had been performing the work of typist. As per respondent, her services were terminated w. e. f 28. 2. 2000 without giving any opportunity of hearing and without any departmental enquiry. The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of M. P. I. R act, 1960. She pleaded that she had been engaged as daily wager typist on 23. 1. 1992 and disengaged w. e. f 28. 2. 2000 without any notice. The provisions of section 25n of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 were not complied with. The petitioner had been performing manufacturing work and it engaged more than 100 employees. It was specifically stated in the application that the petitioner had been in construction business and it had been constructing houses laying down sever pipelines and constructing roads and thereafter selling the houses to the consumers. The petitioner In Its reply admitted the fact that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis and her services were terminated w. e. f 28. 2. 2000. It has further been stated that she had been paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 18,309 equal to 15 days wages of a year and also salary for the period of one month. It was further stated that the Government Issued a direction to terminate services of daily wager employees who were engaged after 31. 12. 1988. Consequently, the services of the respondent were terminated.

(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court the respondent tendered her evidence and stated that she was engaged on daily wage basis on 23. 1. 1992 as typist and disengaged w. e. f 28. 2. 2000. She further stated that more than 100 employees had been working in the department and it was engaged in development of land, construction of houses, laying down of pipelines and construction of roads. It had been selling the aforesaid houses to the consumers. On behalf of the petitioner one Mr. D. K. Sawle, who was working as Assistant Engineer at the relevant time was examined. He in his cross-examination admitted the fact that no permission was obtained from the appropriate Government before termination of services of the respondent. He further admitted that more than 100 employees had been working in the Office and the Board was engaged in developing of land and construction of roads and houses, which were sold tp the consumers. The photocopies of the attendance registers, of the respondent were also produced by the Board before the Labour Court from January, 1992 upto February, 2000. It is clear from the attendance registers that the respondent had been continuously working as daily wager typist. She was also paid the salary to this effect.

(3.) ON the basis of the above evidence, the Labour court has held that the termination of services of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No proper permission from the appropriate Government was taken by the board before terminating the services. The Labour court ordered reinstatement with 50% back-wages. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the Industrial Court in appeal.