MUNICIPAL PARISHAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 was not the employee of the Committee and had rather worked under the supervision and control of the Contractor.

(3.) In order to prove her case, respondent No.2 herself appeared in the witness box as WW-1 and examined Devender Kumar, Clerk of the petitioner-Committee as WW-2. Respondent No.2 produced various documents on record. Respondent No.2 had produced on record certificate dated 31.07.2009 to establish that she had been working with the Committee from 01.01.1996 onwards. The said certificate has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Perusal of the same reveals that the same had been issued by the Secretary of the Committee to the effect that respondent No.2 was working under them as a Mali from 01.01.1996 at a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- The certificate was issued on 31.07.2009. Although, the certificate had been issued on the request made by respondent No.2 for obtaining gas connection but a perusal of the same shows that respondent No.2 was working under the Committee from 01.01.1996 onwards. Respondent No.2 had also placed on record copies of daily attendance register. Since, Clerk of the petitioner-Committee had been examined by respondent No.2 as her witness, it is evident that the Committee was aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court but had failed to appear and defend the proceedings before the Labour Court. The evidence led by respondent No.2 had gone un-rebutted. Consequently, Labour Court rightly directed that respondent No.2 was entitled for reinstatement in service.