MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, a copy of which is placed at Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. By this award, the Labour Court has held that the workman (respondent No. 2) had put in more than one year and seven months of service. Her services were terminated without giving her one month's notice or retrenchment compensation and as such the order of termination was violative of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ). Accordingly, respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. It was further held that the workman was entitled to full back wages.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a clerk against the leave vacancy of Smt. Savitri Sharma. This appointment was orignally made by an order issued on 3rd February, 1981, for a period of one month. After the expiry of first appointment, respondent No. 2 was appointed against the vacancy caused by the suspension of Smt. Savitri Sharma on 23rd July, 1981. It is averred in the petiton that Smt. Savitri Sharma approached the civi! court and obtained an order in her favour. She, accordingly, reported back for duty on March 9, 1983. As a result, respondent No. 2 is stated to have been relieved of her duties. The petitioner further claims that respondent No. 2 was again appointed on daily wages on June 27, 1983, and that she had abandoned the job of her own accord on June 30, 1983. Respondent No. 2's appeal before the Director, Local Government, having failed, she sought a reference under Section 10 of the Act which was made to the Labour Court on June 25, 1984. The proceedings before the Labour Court culminated in the award in favour of the workman. This award has been impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) IN response to the notice of the writ petiton, the respondent workman has filed a written statement. In paragraph 3, it has been stated that the appointment of respondent was duly confirmed, vide resolution No. 254 dated August 31, 1981. It has been further averred that Sarvshri Darshan Ram and Jaswant Singh were appointed as clerks with effect from March 25, 1983, and one Shri Rajinder Kumar was promoted from the post of peon. At that time, it is alleged that no offer was made to the respondent. The averments in the petition have been controverted and it has been averred that the respondent had been appointed on a vacant post and later on her appointment was confirmed. It has been further averred that on the date of termination, viz. , March 9, 1983, four posts of clerks were lying vacant against which Sarvshri Darshan Ram, Jaswant Singh and Rajinder Kumar were appointed with effect from March 25, 1983. In the back ground of this factual position, it is claimed that the termination of services of respondent No. 2 was wholly illegal and that the award given by the learned Labour Court is unassailable.