ANITA PURI Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the award dated 14.7.2011, Annexure P11, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh whereby the reference has been answered in terms of awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the work-lady/present petitioner had been engaged by the Management of the respondent Shri Guru Harkishan Model School as Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.1995 and had continued to serve till 10.1.2005 when her services were terminated in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). It has been argued that all through her service tenure, the petitioner had worked diligently and to the satisfaction of her superiors and in token thereof had even earned appreciation letters. It is further contended that the Management was pressurizing the petitioner to resign so as to accommodate some other favourite and as such, her services were terminated with a malafide intention by setting up a false plea of abolition of the post. It has been argued that apart from discharging the duties of collection of school charges from the students, the petitioner was also working in the respondent-School and looking after the work pertaining to stationery, books and uniforms of the students and as such, even if the work relating to collection of school charges had been outsourced to a Bank, still it would not be construed that the post the petitioner was holding stood abolished. Contended that such plea of abolition was a sham. Learned counsel has also asserted that the appointment letter dated 1.11.1995, Exhibit W2, as also copy of resolution of meeting of the Executive Committee of the Management allegedly held on 6.11.2004, Exhibit W3, in pursuance to which the services of the petitioner were terminated are fabricated documents and were just an after-thought. Learned counsel has also argued that a finding having been returned by the Labour Court as regards non-compliance of Section 25 of the Act, relief of reinstatement was a necessary consequence, particularly, keeping in view the length of service that the petitioner had rendered.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management has submitted that a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Management was held on 6.11.2004 and a decision was taken to abolish two posts of office Clerks and consequent to which, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 10.1.2005. It has been argued on behalf of the Management that dispensing of the services of the petitioner was not by way of punishment, but only on account of a situation whereby the work and duty discharged by the petitioner as also another employee, namely, Shashi having been out-sourced to different agencies. It has further been stated that no other employee has been appointed after the petitioner was relieved from service consequent upon abolition of the post as there was no requirement for any other employee to work in her place.