PREMLATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No return has been filed, in spite of long adjournment granted to the respondents on 24.5.1990. Further time is prayed for the purpose. We hardly find any justification in the prayer.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the termination of petitioner's services who was employed as Dai (Midwife) in the rural Dispensary at Kanaur, with effect from 12.8 86, is void in view of the non-compliance of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the said termination is set aside and the respondents arc directed to take the petitioner back in service and pay her all emoluments due to her, since the date of the termination within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

(3.) The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. Ordered accordingly.