SANTOSH RANI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner served as a part-time ad hoc Safai Karamchari with Thakur Devi Takanram DAV Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Yamunanagar initially on a consolidated salary of Rs. 749/- per month from the year 2001 till 10th July, 2005 to work in the girls hostel earning monthly wages at Rs. 1400/- per month till she last served. Her appointment was made on 89 days basis. During the period of service, she was given 19 extensions of 89 days each. The management asserted that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 10th July, 2005 to 19th July, 2005. She gave an undertaking to retrieve employment that in case she goes on leave in future, she may be relieved from duty. This obviously was under threat of termination and by way of a reprieve. On the face of the request letter, in which she expressed regret on proceeding on leave without notice, the management recorded that the same be filed. In the hand written note in English addressed to the Clerk, it was recorded, "the candidate is warned about his behaviour & can be relieved from duties without notice if repeated". The warning was dated 20th July, 2005. Notwithstanding, the management passed an order No.4932 dated 22nd August, 2005 relieving her from duty on completion of the last run of 89 days of ad hoc service.

(2.) Aggrieved by the relieving order which meant 'retrenchment', the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and served a demand notice on the management claiming reinstatement. On their refusal to do so, conciliation proceedings were initiated but failed to settle the dispute and then the petitioner sought reference to the area labour court to adjudicate the dispute. The appropriate Government made reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.

(3.) The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and in its award dated 14th October, 2010 has rejected the reference and the workman was held not entitled to any relief whatsoever as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable or attracted in the case. The Labour Court was of the view that the claim statement submitted by the worker wilfully and intentionally raised false and frivolous pleas to abuse the process of law. The dispute has been answered in favour of the management. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and not on regular basis. Neither any advertisement was published in the newspaper nor was any interview conducted when the appointment was made. The Court a quo applied the ruling in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and anther, 2006 11 SCC 684 and held that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on a public post which was required to be filled by following the principles of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since, admittedly, no such procedure was adopted, therefore, the question of termination without notice and without enquiry or otherwise does not arise, especially when the appointment orders as indicated in the letters Ex.M3 to 16, Ex.M18, Ex.M20 to Ex.M22 and Ex.M25 were admitted and accepted by the workman. This shows that her job is purely temporary and she can be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The Labour Court felt that on this factor alone the workman was estopped from filing the present claim statement by her own act and conduct.