SAHIDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) THE termination was made without complying with the provision of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act. The case of the petitioner further was that and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application before the Labour Commissioner, Jodhpur conciliation proceedings under Sections 12(4) of the Act. Due to indifferent attitude of respondent in conciliation proceedings, the same failed as would be evident from Annx.4 dated 9.4.91. Thereafter, no action has taken by respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to Industrial Tribunal. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner submitted that termination of her services was ex facie being in contravention of the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that posts are lying vacant with the respondents and she was entitled to be reinstated. Upon such pleadings, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:

(3.) IT may here be stated that respondents admitted that conciliation proceedings were initiated and failure report was also made on 9.4.91. It was pleaded that since final order had not been passed by the State Government Under Section 2 of the Act, the writ was premature and on this ground, the writ was liable to be dismissed.