USHA RANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 02.08.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (here -in -after referred to as the "Tribunal") directing the respondents to compensate her with Rs. 7,000/ - instead of reinstating her into service with full back wages. According to the case of the petitioner, she joined respondents no.2 to 4 on 24.11.1997 as part time Class -IV employee and was drawing Rs. 63/ - per day when her services were terminated on 31.12.1998. Initially, she had filed a Civil Suit against the order of termination which was dismissed on the ground that she was neither entitled to the declaration nor permanent injunction and the respondents no.2 to 4 cannot be restrained from implementing and giving effect to the memo dated 31.12.1998. She also remained unsuccessful in her appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.66 of 26.07.2000 which was dismissed on 15.02.2003. Thereafter, she served a demand notice on 30.06.2006 and on the failure of the reconciliation proceedings, her dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 2 - A and Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here -in -after referred to as the "Act").

(2.) THE Tribunal has held that the petitioner has though worked as a part time Class IV employee but she had completed more than 240 days immediately before the date of her termination and at that time she was not paid any notice money or compensation which is the violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. It was, however, observed that the petitioner was not the regular employee of respondents no.2 to 4 and proper procedure was not followed at the time of giving her employment, therefore, she was not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and a sum of Rs. 7,000/ - was found enough to compensate her.

(3.) AT the time of notice of motion, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - is very paltry for one year of service. However, the reply has been filed by respondents no.2 to 4 justifying termination of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondents have not challenged the award of the Tribunal, therefore, they cannot argue on the merits. It is also submitted that violation of Section 25 -F of the Act has been upheld by the Tribunal and the only issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages or the award of Rs. 7,000/ - as compensation would be justifiable.