MEERA SHUKLA Vs. ESSEN DEINKI PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/workman, has thrown a challenge to order dtd. 10/12/2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.2, vide which the claim of thee petitioner/workman for re-insttatement was declined despite, her termination from the services, were helld to be illegal, and a meaggre compensatioon of Rs.15,000.00 was awarded.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petiitioner submits that once it iss a positive finddings by the learned Tribunal concerned, to the effect, that services of the petitiooner/workman, were illegally terrminated, then the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have allowed the reference in totality, and passed the award directing re-instatement of the petitiooner. He further draws the attentiion of this Court towards the writteen statement, filed by the respondent/Management, which was also considered by the learned Tribunal that they are still ready and willing to allow the workman to rejoin her services. He finally submits that even thhe compensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, was inadequate, despiite the fact that the petitioner has worked for 02 years and 07 months, with thee respondent/Management.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Management, submitted that theere is no dispute with regard to the fact that theere is infraction of Sec. 25((f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He, further admitted the fact that the petitioner/workman, has workked for 02 years and 07 months, and her services were terminated, way back in the year 2019, therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passsed the award regarding re-instatement of the petitioner/workman, and an adequate compensation was awarded to her.