CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED Vs. SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHASH B. Adi, J: An award dated 22nd April 2006 in IDR No. 74/2002 on the file of Labour Court, Chikmagalur is called in question by Cauvery neeravari Nigama Limited.

(2.) THE respondent claiming to be workman, alleged that she had worked as a Literate Assistant on daily wages w. e. f. 16-4-1980 till 25-5-1989 and she was removed from the service without any enquiry and alleged that it is an unfair labour practice, arbitrary and malafide and amounts to victimization. In this regard, the respondent approached the Conciliation officer. On failure of the conciliation, the matter was referred to the State government. The State Government by order dated 5. 9. 2002 referred the matter to the Labour Court. The claim petition of the respondent was contested by filing a counter statement by the petitioner. In the counter statement, it is alleged that the petitioner is not an industry and appointments to the post are governed by the rules and regulations and also alleged that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. In addition to the same, it is also alleged that, the reference is made after abnormal delay. In this regard, it is also alleged that it is difficult to search and produce relevant documents pertaining to alleged employment of the respondent. It is also denied that the respondent had worked for 240 days and further alleged that the dispute cannot be entertained after lapse of nearly 13 years.

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the workman was examined as WW-1 and from the Management side, one witness MW-1 was examined. The labour Court on appreciation of the evidence held that, the respondent has worked as Literate Assistant from 1980 to 1989 and has proved that, she had worked for 240 days in terms of Section 25-B of the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the At') and further held that, since the respondent has proved that she had worked for 240 days and she has been removed in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act, even if there is delay, the delay will not come in the way of Labour Court to mould the relief. On these findings, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent without backwages.