Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) On a reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) with reference to the discharge from service of Miss Aleyamma Samuel a typist in the appellants organisation, the Industrial Tribunal held that the employee had established that she had worked for 240 days continuously in the relevant year, hence her discharge was illegal and therefore directed her reinstatement with 50% back wages.
(2.) The case pleaded on behalf of the discharged employee was that she was employed as a typist from 21-1-1987 on a consolidated wage of Rs. 15 per day and continued to work as such till 14-4-1998 hence she had put in more than 240 days of work in 12 months preceding the date of her discharge. It is alleged that the said discharge or retrenchment was without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Standing Orders of the Company.
(3.) On behalf of the Management it was pleaded that she was employed only on a day to day basis depending upon the requirement of the day and was not in a continuous employment. It was also pleaded that there was no post available to employ the said work-person on a continuous basis. The tribunal by its award dated 24-4-1992 accepted the case of the work-person and held that discharging the services of said Miss Samuel as typist was not justified. Hence it directed her reinstatement in service w.e.f. 15-4-1988 and to pay her 50% of back wages according to the scale. There was also a direction to the said work-person to report for duty within the time stipulated in the said order.;