NEELAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole point for consideration in this case is whether the period spent during the training period, after the duration of which, the workman had been absorbed to regular service, could be counted for determining the continuity of service. The contention of the workman, which led to a reference before the Labour Court was that she had been initially appointed as a Personal Assistant on 22.05.1995 and after a training period of six months, she was given a regular appointment order on 01.01.1996. The workman claimed that she had been terminated from service on 18.03.1998 illegally. When complaining of such retrenchment, the workman had sought reference to a Labour Court for industrial adjudication relating to the validity of the termination. The workman had also complained that some juniors had been retained in service and there was also a violation of Section 25 -G of the Act. The management filed a reply denying the contentions raised by the workman and pleaded that the services had been terminated on account of the abolition of post and all the legal dues were sent to the claimant when the post was abolished. She had accepted the same, which included the notice pay, service compensation etc. The compensation was calculated on the basis that the service was to be reckoned only from the date when she was regularized in the post on 01.01.1996.

(2.) THE Labour Court found that the appropriate amount had been calculated and the service could be reckoned only from the date of regular service and the period of training could not be included for determining the compensation payable. The Court accordingly held that there was a due compliance of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the workman had no cause for complaint.

(3.) THE amount of compensation that the workman had been paid at the time of termination of service did not admittedly count the period of a training and the compensation amount was, therefore, inadequate leaving out of reckoning the 15 days wage that he was bound to be given for the period when she was working as a trainee. The consequence is that there was no due compliance of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination order was not valid.