BACHNI DEVI Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala, whereby her demand notice dated 22.02.2013 has been rejected. Further challenge is to the order dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-8) whereby representation filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the demand notice has also been declined by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on 01.01.1993 as Chowkidar-cum-Peon in the office of Principal, Government High School, Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and had served as such for a period of almost 20 years. She had approached the management for her absorption on regular basis against the vacant post of Peon. Petitioner had even submitted a representation and the same having evoked no response, CWP No. 1471 of 2012 was filed in this Court and which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider her claim in accordance with law. The respondents thereafter are stated to have passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the representation, services of the petitioner are stated to have been verbally terminated w.e.f. 08.01.2013. The petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') upon the Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, District Education Officer, Education Department, Patiala, Principal, Government High School, Manakpur, Rajpura and with a copy to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala for early intervention. Such demand notice was responded to in terms of a reply dated 09.04.2013 having been filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala at Annexure P-4 taking a stand that the petitioner/work-woman had not been appointed in the school in the year 1993 but was rather engaged as a Helper (Class IV) w.e.f. 07.11.2008 by the PTA Committee on 89 days' basis. A further stand was taken in the reply that services of the work-woman were terminated vide PTA Committee resolution No. 41 dated 20.12.2012. The reasons for termination was cited as lack of funds.

(2.) Vide impugned order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-5), the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala/respondent No. 1 has rejected the demand notice dated 22.03.2013 in the following terms:

(3.) Apparently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala against the rejection of demand notice and treating the same to be an appeal and the same has been declined vide order dated 05.09.2013 at Annexure P-8. It is against such brief factual backdrop that the instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 23.05.2013 at Annexure P-5 as also dated 05.09.2013 at Annexure P-8.