HEMALATA SAHOO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner disputing her disengagement from service with effect from May 31, 1993 by the Management of D.A.V. Public School, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation having failed, the State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication:

(2.) According to the petitioner she was engaged as an Aya under Opposite Party No. 2-Management with effect from November, 1991 and was being paid daily wages. She continued in service for about two years. Though she was required to look after the children of the school and also to do the work of a Peon as and when required, she was directed to do the domestic work at the residence of the Principal of the School. She having expressed her unwillingness, the Principal bore grudge on her and on and from July 21,1993 she was not permitted to perform her duties and was told that her services had been terminated. It is asserted that as no notice had been served on her nor the mandatory requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act had been complied with before her termination from service, the order of termination was ab initio void and the same was to be set aside.

(3.) The Management-Opposite Party No. 2 on receiving notice appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement repudiating almost all the allegations made by the petitioner- workman and taking the stand that the petitioner was never a regular employee under it. It was stated that as and when necessity arose the petitioner was being engaged on daily wage basis, that too only with effect from January 3, 1992 and not from November, 1991 as falsely alleged by the petitioner. According to the Management the petitioner never rendered continuous service of 240 days in any calendar year. In fact she was engaged only for 162 days in the year 1992 and 118 days in the year 1993, that too not continuously.