SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. SANTOSH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the State for quashing the Award dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure P -1) vide which, the reference has been answered against the State and in favour of the respondent -workwoman and she has been held entitled to be reinstated alongwith continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 20.09.2002 after recording a finding that there was violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and also the provisions of Sections 25 -G and 25 -H of the Act since juniors are still working.

(2.) COUNSEL for the State has vehemently submitted that the respondent -workwoman was only a daily wager and had not completed a period of 240 days in the year 2001 and, therefore, the reinstatement is not justified.

(3.) THE matter being referred to the Labour Court, the claim statement was filed on the same set of allegations, which has been contested on the ground that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages for emergent work like repairs of patch work and other petty repair works from time to time. Labourers found surplus with the department were terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.04.2001 offering retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,950/ - but was not received and the petitioner had rushed to this Court for relief. The details of the working of the petitioner from the year 1994 were also given which admittedly showed that preceding the termination in the year 2001, she had worked for 122 days in the said year and in the year 2000, she had completed 258 days whereas, in the year 1999 also, she had completed 279 days. Another notice dated 16.01.2002 had been sent as retrenchment compensation but she had refused to take the delivery of the letter and the demand draft. The factum of the juniors being retained was denied.