ALKA KHURANA Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHIWANI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk/Accounts Clerk to serve Improvement Trust, Bhiwani. She joined service on 10.9.1985. She was a daily wage worker drawing the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District for the job. Her services were discontinued on 1.3.1988. A notice of disengagement of her services dated 15.2.1992 was served on her which she refused to accept. The Improvement Trust sent a letter by registered post which was received back unserved. This letter contained a cheque dated 15.3.1988 for a sum of Rs.450/- representing her dues. It is not disputed that the last date of service was 1.3.1988 while the registered letter with cheque was sent on 15.3.1988. The money payment offer was not simultaneous with or offered at the time of termination. This issue has been dealt with in detail by the labour Court and no further reference needs to make to dilate on the subject.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper book with their able assistance. Mr. Saurabh Arora learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition was admitted on April 26, 1993 and was ordered to be heard with admitted case CWP No.13859 of 1992 which was cross writ filed by the Improvement Trust, Bhiwani, against the same award which was dismissed on May 5, 2011. On January 1, 1996, the admitting Bench directed that the present petition be listed for regular hearing within six months.

(3.) In the present petition, no interim order was passed staying the operation of the award, however, there was a stay order in CWP No.13859 of 1992 filed by the Improvement Trust and therefore the petitioner became entitled to full back wages last drawn under section 17- B the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, instead of paying money without taking labour the Improvement Trust, Bhiwani found it more prudent to take back the petitioner into service and that is how she has continued to serve all these years on the post till she reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013 and retired from service. No terminal benefits have been given to her since the matter has remained pending adjudication as also for the reason that the petitioner had approached this Court in CWP No.14346 of 2010 while this petition was pending where she claimed regularization of her services in view of pendency of the cross petition challenging the impugned award. The learned Single Judge noticed the brief facts of the case in the background of claim for regularization but dismissed the said writ petition on August 13, 2010 since the question of validity of termination was pending consideration in CWP No.13859 of 1992 filed by the respondent which petition was finally, as mentioned earlier, dismissed in 2011. Since the question of termination was not finalized, a claim for regularization would not lie and that is why the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition granted liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy including filing another writ petition on disposal of CWP No.13859 of 1992, which is the present one.