SUDHA RANI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On February 19, 2013, this Court put the respondents to notice on the submission of Mrs.Abha Rathore appearing for the petitioner-worker that this case is covered by the ratio of the judgment in cases Bhiku Ram v. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak,1998 1 RSJ 703 and Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Bhatinda, 1998 2 SCT 72. The respondents were granted time to file a reply to the submission. Thereafter, the second respondent started taking time to make a statement whether this a covered matter and the hearing was deferred twice to obtain instructions and respond till the matter was heard today for final disposal.

(2.) The facts of the case are these; the petitioner was appointed as a Gram Sevika in January, 1998 for a period of 89 days on a consolidated salary. She worked up to June 21, 1998. On expiry of the first period, her services were continued by issuing repeated orders passed each for a period of 89 days with notional break of two days which mostly fell on holidays i.e Saturdays and Sundays. She worked in this way continuously up to October 10, 2001. She approached this Court in CWP No.11944 of 2001 claiming regularization of her services and for grant of regular pay scale. The petition was disposed of on August 14, 2001 with a direction to the respondents to decide her legal notice within 3 months and if she is found entitled to monetary benefits, then those were to be restricted to 3 years and 2 months prior to the filing of the writ petition.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that this litigation sparked off annoyance in the higher ranks of the management and sanction against her post was not extended which led to her termination from service. The petitioner again approached this Court in CWP No.17638 of 2001 challenging the termination order claiming reinstatement, regularization and regular pay scale. This Court did not agree with the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction in the matter of grant of relief and on August 9, 2005 she was relegated to her alternative remedy before the Labour Court. This brought the petitioner to raise dispute. She filed a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the management seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The demand notice was served on August 22, 2005. The matter was taken up by the Conciliation Officer to forge a settlement which effort failed and the Haryana Government referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Gurgaon for adjudication. The petitioner produced evidence before the Labour Court to show that the work of Gram Sevika is a continuing need in the management. Meanwhile, a number of Gram Sevikas who were retained in service on 89 days basis were made regular by the Government. She also produced evidence to show that after she was removed, the additional charge was given to another Gram Sevika in her place. The Labour Court, Gurgaon did not agree with the petitioner and passed the award dated May 14, 2012 dismissing the reference on the ground that her services were contractual in nature and she had no subsisting right to the post in view of the declaration of law in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi, 2006 4 SCC 1 . Against the impugned award, the petitioner is before this Court assailing it and praying for full relief.