BALA DEVI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the award dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby her claim for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Ambala.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as daily wager with respondent department in January, 1988. She worked in the department continuously till 7.12.2006. After she had put in more than 18 years of service, her services were terminated on 7.12.2006 in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") as no retrenchment compensation was paid to her. The petitioner then served a demand notice dated 17.1.2007 praying for her reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which was decided against the petitioner vide the impugned award dated 8.9.2010. It is this award which is impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as daily wager from January, 1988 till 7.12.2006 continuously. After she had put in more than 18 years of service, her services were unceremoniously terminated in utter violation of Section 25F, G, H of the Act. It is further pleaded that the Labour Court vide its award dated 8.9.2010 decided the reference against the petitioner and in favour of respondent management thereby dismissing her claim, completely on flimsy grounds even after giving a categoric finding to the effect that the petitioner-workman was in the employment of the respondent management from 1988 to 2006. Once it was proved that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service during the preceding 12 months, resultant termination in violation of Section 25F of the Act should have been held to be bad with consequential relief of re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. He further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate that in the present case it was not the pleaded case of the respondent-management that the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages because she was daily wager and was not appointed as per the service rules. No issue in this regard was framed by the Labour court. The complete record pertaining to the service of the petitioner was also not produced by the respondent management. Despite no evidence against the petitioner, the learned Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner. The prayer is for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential reliefs.