KITABO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present petition is to the orders/letters dated 24.2.2003 and 13.5.2003 whereby the appropriate government declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner-workman to the Labour Court.

(2.) It is averred by the petitioner that on 8.2.2001, she was appointed as Peon by respondent No. 3 on daily wages. She served as such up to 6.2.2002 when her services were terminated illegally by respondent No. 3 Challenging her termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before respondent No. 2 by serving a demand notice (Annexure P-1) under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act). Respondent No. 3 contested the demand notice by submitting a reply (Annexure P-2) thereto. Their stand was that the petitioner-workman was never appointed as a Peon by the Bank, as such, rejection of demand notice was sought. The petitioner controverting the stand taken by the Bank in its reply and re-asserting that of demand notice, filed re-joinder to it. Then conciliation proceedings were taken before respondent No. 2 but the same resulted into naught. On receipt of failure report, the appropriate government passed the impugned order dated 24.2.2003, which on reproduction reads as under: The disputant Smt. Kitabo w/o Shri Subhash Chand failed to establish her claim of employment during the period from 8.2.2001 to 6.2.2002 with the Punjab and Sind Bank. Hence the dispute raised does not subsist.

(3.) Thereafter, on 16.4.2003, the petitioner got served a legal notice for review of the order dated 24.2.2003. While relying upon the vouchers vide which the workman was paid salary, it has been submitted that there exist employer- employee relationship between the parties and that the question whether or not the services of the workman has been terminated illegally has to be decided by the Labour Court. Thus, reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was sought.