(1.) PETITIONER Smt. Radha Nair had earlier filed a writ petition titled Mewa Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, Civil Writ petition No. 7706/1995 which was decided on november 2,1999 by a learned single Judge of this Court reported as 2000 (1) RSJ 210. In that case petitioner had prayed for payment of arrears of salary and regularisation. Respondent no. 3 Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana was directed to pay the arrears. However, prayer for regularisation was declined on the ground that the petitioner was working in a project. Para 10 of Mewa Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (supra) in which present petitioner was one of the petitioners reads as under:-"10. The question of regularisation cannot, however, be decided inasmuch as the petitioners are working in a project. Further, they are not the employees of the State government. " in present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the award, Annexure P-3 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala whereby prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages has been declined vide impugned award dated November 14, 2005, Annexure P-3.
(2.) IT has been convassed before us by counsel for the petitioner that the respondents-the District Red Cross Society, kurukshetra and the Indian Red Cross Society, haryana Branch through its Vice Chairman have committed the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as no notice was served on the petitioner and no retrenchment compensation was paid. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated december 23,1981, Annexure P-1 and she was called upon to join the duty upto January 7, 1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide annexure P-2 dated May 18,2000, her services stood terminated as Family Welfare Planning clinics were closed by the Red Cross Society due to stoppage of grant by the Director, Health services, Haryana, Chandigarh to the Family welfare Clinics.
(3.) THE case of the respondents is that services of the petitioner were terminated on may 18, 2000 after paying her one month's salary in lieu of notice and all payments of other dues including gratuity and leave encashment were paid to the petitioner and the same were accepted without any protest. The Labour Court held that due to the closure of scheme for want of grant, respondents were well justified in terminating the services of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner who was temporarily employed was not entitled to retrenchment compensation. We find that the view of the labour Court is just, reasonable and apt and, therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.