ANITA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by Ms Anita - workwoman, by challenging award dtd. 16/9/2015 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (hereafter referred to as, 'the Labour Court'), in Reference No. 18 of 2015, whereby her claim for reinstatement in service, in terms of the reference referred to it for adjudication, under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as, 'the 1947 Act'), has been declined on the ground of barred by the 'principle of resjudicata'. The petitioner/workwoman, being employee of respondent No. 2, i.e. the General Officer Commanding, Golden Line Canteen, Head Quarter, PH & HP (1) Sub Area, Canteen Cell, Ambala Cantt. (management), has been non-suited by holding that the claim raised by the workwoman has already been entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as, 'the CAT'), in OA No. 822/HR/2003, titled as 'Anita v. Union of India and others, decided on 20/1/2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby oral termination order dtd. 21/8/2003, has been held to be as per law.

(2.) In brief, claim of the petitioner/workwoman is that she is daughter of an Ex-serviceman, namely, S.S. Pati, and she was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator-cum-Sales Girl in the month of November, 1998, in the Golden Line Canteen, Defence Cinema, Ambala Cantt., under the Central Stores Department, Ambala Cantt. She was drawing monthly salary of Rs.1,500.00, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,900.00 per month. She was allowed to mark her attendance w.e.f. 1/8/1999. Without regularizing her services, the workwoman was terminated on 21/8/2003, by an oral order. As per SOPs, the workwoman was required to be served with one month's notice and also an opportunity before termination of her services. However, at the time of termination, neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation was paid to her. Even the principle of 'last come first go' has not been followed by the management, inasmuch as, persons junior to her, namely, Nirmal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Niranjan Singh and Prem Kumar etc., were retained in service. Not only this, the Management appointed certain new persons, after termination of the services of the petitioner/workwoman.

(3.) Challenging the said order of oral termination, dtd. 21/8/2003, the workwoman approached the CAT, by filing OA No. 822/HR/2003. However, without examining the position of law, the action of termination was held to be valid by the CAT, vide its order dtd. 20/1/2004 (Annexure P-1). For convenience, the relevant part of the order dtd. 20/1/2004 (Annexure P-1), is reproduced hereunder:-