INDICATION INSTRUMENTS LIMITED Vs. ANITA KUMARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute as to termination arose on January 06, 2011 when the services of respondent-Anita Kumari were illegally terminated by the management. She had been appointed as a Helper on March 02, 2009. Anita Kumari approached the Labour Court after raising a dispute and serving a demand notice upon the management and on the expiration of 45 days [of service of demand notice on the labour conciliation officer] she took recourse to the amended provision in section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") by approaching the Labour Court-III, Faridabad. Anita Kumari had earlier to the period in question worked intermittently with the management in 2007 and 2008 and had suffered two termination orders before she was appointed on March 02, 2009 as an Apprentice (Learner), a post not covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") because it was so stated by the management itself in the appointment letter Ex.M-10 at Annexure P-1 with the paper book. The duration of the apprenticeship training was fixed from March 02, 2009 to August 31, 2009 in the first instance. This period could be further extended up to maximum period of 36 months. Her services were stipulated to be governed by the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the company and such other rules and regulations as are in force and which may come into force from time to time. The appointment did not promise regular or permanent post on completion of the training period in terms of Clause-4. Her services could be terminated at any time during or at the end of training period without any notice or without assigning any reason therefor. Since the post was not covered under the provisions of the 1961 Act the job was of a "workman" within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. The training period was extended to November 30, 2010. By order in writing Ex.WW- 1/3 dated November 30, 2010 management invoked Clause-4 of the appointment letter and discontinued training w.e.f. November 30, 2010 (afternoon) resulting in termination or retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Act. Anita Kumari refused to accept the impugned letter dated November 30, 2010 and this was recorded by the management in its letter dated December 03, 2010 communicated to her. It has been recorded in the letter that Anita Kumari was called to company office on November 30, 2010 during office hours for receiving the order discontinuing her services and calling upon to take full and final amount of severance from the Accounts Department after submission of clearance certificate. But she did not turn up.

(2.) Resultantly, the management sent letter dated December 03, 2010 through registered post together with a cheque No.904600 dated December 09, 2010 amounted to Rs.6307/-. Anita Kumari acknowledged receipt of the registered letter and wrote back to the management that her services were terminated arbitrarily, illegally and with mala fide intention and she would take recourse to law to claim relief against the management for having taken away her livelihood all of sudden without any reason. She accepted the cheque under protest to tide over hardship for the time being saying she would take legal counsel. She stated that she had never received the appointment letter dated March 02, 2009. She said that management had taken her signatures and thumb impressions on blank, printed papers and vouchers at the time of appointment and during the tenure of her service which were likely to be misused and if misused she would take appropriate legal action against the management.

(3.) She raised a dispute by serving demand notice under section 2-A of the Act which is dated January 20, 2011. In her demand notice, she asserted that she was appointed by the management earlier in April 2007 but the door was shut on November 30, 2007. Again she was appointed in March-April 2008 and her services were again terminated in November 2008. While she was serving she was a member of the Employees Provident Fund but the management had not recognized her EPF member after appointment on March 02, 2009. Her services were terminated without show cause notice or charge-sheet or payment of retrenchment compensation and there was violation of section 25-F of the Act. Wages in lieu of notice was not paid to her as required by the Act. Her last drawn wages were Rs.4370/- per month. She claimed that she had put in over 240 days of continuous service in the calendar year preceding the date of termination. There is no gainsaying that section 25F prescribes a mandatory procedure and check list to be followed before the retrenchment becomes valid and legal and violation visits with invalidation of the action with consequential results.