SATYA DEVI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi (hereinafter referred to as, 'workman'), impugning the award dated august 7, 2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the labour Court, Ambala, whereby prayer of the petitioner-workman for reinstatement in service has been declined and it has been held that the management was justified to terminate the services of the petitioner-workman.

(2.) BRIEF facts can be taken from the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that petitioner-workman was appointed as anganwari worker on August 25, 1994. According to the petitioner-workman, her services were regularized on April 24, 1996 but the management terminated her services on december 9, 1996. Petitioner had approached labour Court and an award was passed on september 5, 2002, whereby she was reinstated in service with continuity, however, management was afforded an opportunity to terminate the services of the petitioner-workman after complying with the due procedure. Petitioner-workman claimed that she submitted her joining report on February 7, 2003 but she was not allowed to join her duty. Subsequently, petitioner-workman was allowed to join her duties on April 29, 2003. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the management on May 14, 2003. A reply was submitted to the show cause notice and services of the petitioner-workman were terminated on september 10, 2003. Petitioner-workman raised a demand notice, on the basis of which, a reference was made by the State of Haryana to the Labour Court. In pursuance of the reference, labour Court noticed the contention of the management that the petitioner-workman was not eligible to be posted as Anganwari worker at village Saini Majra, as she had obtained the job of Anganwari worker by producing forged false domicile/residence certificate. It has been further averred that vide award dated September 5, 2002, management was granted opportunity to terminate services of the petitioner, if so advised, after following the due procedure by the competent authority.

(3.) LEARNED Labour Court noticed that award dated September 5, 2002 had become final between the parties as none of the parties had challenged the award in higher Court of law, Labour Court held that award dated september 5, 2002 (Exhibit M. W. 17) leave no course open to assail the present termination. Findings of the award dated September 5, 2002 (Exhibit M. W. 17) in para 13, which has been reproduced by the Labour Court, read as under: "workman herself admitted that she belongs to Amritsar and is married in Sujanpur (Pathankot) Punjab. Nagar Mal her husband is posted as Head Master in village Baknor, distt. Ambala. In the year 1994 he was posted at Sonta but used to live in a rented house at Ambala City. She had taken a house on rent from Smt. Surjito at village Saini majra and used to live in it. Workman when herself admits that she is a permanent resident of Amritsar (Punjab) and was married at Sujanpur (Pathankot) no dispute remains about it. Merely that she took a house on rent at village Saini Majra and used to live there for the last about 112 year would not make her a permanent resident of that village. It is strange to see as to how she got the domicile certificate issued showing her a permanent resident of that village i. e. Saini majra. Not only this, she got an another domicile certiticalte, issued from the concerned authority i. e. SDO (Civil), ambala, showing herself a permanent resident of village Rattangarh. This shows that the certificates were issued in the routine without making any enquiries and observing the requited formalities workman was not a permanent resident of village Saini Majra so she was not eligible to be posted as Anganwari worker there. She got the domicile certificate issued falsely, illegally and got the job. The management rightly and legally terminated her services, after seeking her explanation. But the order, impugned cannot sustain because it was not passed by the appointing authority. Workman was appointed by the Director, women and Child Development Department, haryana Chandigarh as is evident from the appointment letter dated February 29, 1996 exhibit M-1 but her services were dispensed with by the Programme Officer, Ambala. This is clear from the order dated December 4, 1996 Exhibit M-4. The P. O. was not the appointing authority of the workman. Only the Director, Women and Child Development department was competent to remove the workman from the service and not the authority below her rank. "