The Divisional Forest Officer, (Territorial) vs Smt. Maya Devi

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the impugned Award dated 4.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar-Respondent No. 2 whereby while answering the reference the work-lady has been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/-.

Counsel for the Petitioner contends that a specific finding has been recorded by the Labour Court in para 10 of the Award that the work-lady had not completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination i.e. 24.12.2001. He contends that the work-lady had asserted before the Labour Court that she was appointed in the year 1989 and she continued to work with the Respondent-Management till 24.12.2001 when her services were terminated. The Labour Court, after having given a finding that she had not worked for 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination, could not be granted the compensation as there was no violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating the services of the worklady. He further contends that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and Ors. v. Keshab Dev 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and Anr. 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, have been wrongly applied to the case in hand and the Labour Court has misread the judgments while granting compensation to the work-lady. He, on this basis, prays that the Award dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar (Annexure P-1) be set aside.

Notice of motion was issued to Respondent No. 2-worklady in the present case, who was duly served. However, no one has put in appearance on her behalf.

I have heard counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the Award passed by the Labour Court. The relevant portion of the findings as recorded in para 10 of the impugned Award dated 26.3.2009 reads as follows:

It is proved that the workman/applicant has worked with the department from the year 1988 to 24.12.2001 however, for want of record, it could not be proved by the worklady that she worked continuously without any break within the said period. It is not the case on behalf of the worklady that the department intentionally with-held the attendance record. Thus, for want of documentary evidence, it is not proved on record that the worklady worked continuously for a period of 240 days within 12 months preceding the date of her alleged termination. It is admitted in the claim statement as well as in the demand notice by the worklady/applicant herself that she was engaged as labourer on daily paid basis.

xxx xxx xxx 5. A perusal of the above would leave no manner of doubt that a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the work-lady had not completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination. The effect thereof is that there is no violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. There is nothing on record which would suggest that any other provision of the Act has been allegedly violated by the Respondent-Management while terminating her services. It was also not the case of the work-lady before the Labour Court that the provisions as contained under Sections 25G and 25H of the Act were violated. If that be so, there was no evidence led by the work-lady which would show such violation.

In the light of the findings recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the days the work-lady had worked in the 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination and there being no violation of the provisions of the Act while terminating her services, no compensation could have been awarded by the Labour Court to the work-lady. The above-mentioned judgments relied upon by the Labour Court while granting compensation are the judgments wherein the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that there was violation of the provisions of the Act, especially Section 25F of the Act. In those circumstances when the Court had come to a conclusion that the services were terminated not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the initial appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service, as also there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, instead of ordering reinstatement in service, the worklady was granted compensation to settle the equities between the parties. The case in hand is not thus of the similar nature where the ratio of the judgments referred to above could be applied to the claim of the work-lady.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the Award dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, is hereby set aside.