LALITA KUMARI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was initially appointed on 10th August, 1984 as clerk -cum -typist in the Vocational Training Centre of the Red Cross Society at Karnal. She resigned on 16th April, 1987. Thereafter, she again requested for an employment as clerk -cum -typist in the same Vocational Training Centre. Pursuant to her request, she was given a fresh appointment on temporary basis as Accounts Clerk -cum -typist on 14th June, 1988. In the letter of appointment issued to her she was told that she was being appointed for the project in Red Cross Vocational Training Centre, Karnal and that her continuity in service was dependent upon receipt of 90% grant from the Social Welfare Department of the Haryana Government. It is no longer in dispute before us that the State Government withdrew the grant to the Vocational Training Centre and, therefore, the Centre had to close down in July, 1994 and the services of all the employees working therein including those of the Petitioner were terminated. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute regarding her termination and the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat. This reference was made under Sub -clause (c) to Sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended up -to -date and hereinafter called the Act. The case set up by the Petitioner was that the termination of her services amounted to 'retrenchment' within the meaning of the Act and since the provisions of Section 25 -F had not been complied with the termination was illegal and the same was liable to be set aside. She claimed re -instatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE Red Cross Society contested the claim of the workman and stated that her services were terminated on account of the closure of the Vocational Training Centre where she had been employed and, therefore, the Provisions of Section 25 -F were not attracted and that the case was governed by the provisions of Section 25 -FFF. According to the management, the compensation payable to the Petitioner in terms of Section 25 -FFF had been paid and, therefore, she was not entitled to any further relief.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. It was strenuously urged before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the termination of the services of the Petitioner did not fall under Section 25 -FFF of the Act and that it amounted to retrenchment. The argument indeed is that the District Red Cross Society was continuing its activities within the district and merely because the Vocational Training Centre was closed down did not mean the closure of the 'undertaking' by the District Red Cross Society so as to attract the provisions of Section 25 -FFF. It was argued that the termination of the services of the Petitioner was retrenchment' within the meaning of the Act and since the provisions of Section 25 -F were not complied with the same was illegal. He placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 170.