SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.P. Aggarwal, senior advocate and Ms. Suman Sirohi for petitioner and Sri V.B. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri P.S. Baghel for respondent -corporation.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : Petitioner was employed by the respondent -corporation as stenographer/typist. Her services were terminated on 23.7.1994. She raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court (IV), Kanpur. It was registered as Adjudication Case No. 296 of 1995. By an award dated 19.7.1996 the Labour Court decided the reference in her favour. It was found that petitioner's services were Illegally terminated in violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act). The corporation was directed to reinstate her in service and to pay to her Rs. 1,200 per month for the period she was restrained from working. A Writ Petition No. 30267 of 1996, filed by corporation against the award was dismissed on 13.10.2000. This Court held : (a) the Corporation is an 'industry' within the meaning of the definition in the Act ; (b) the petitioner is a 'workman' ; (c) the definition of the word 'retrenchment' in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (In short the Central Act) with the exceptions in Section 2(bb), (oo) as amended by Act No. 49 of 1984, being later in time, would, in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, prevail over the definition in the State Act ; (d) petitioner was Initially appointed as apprentice on 12.9.1988 and thereafter she was appointed against a regular post of steno/typist on 12.12.1988, and she worked up to 22.7.1994, on the basis of the contract, appointment issued from time to time for three months. She was engaged for a work of permanent nature, and her appointment for stipulated period, was not bona fide. The corporation acted arbitrarily in giving appointment for specified period to deprive her of the statutory benefits which amounts to unfair labour practice, and (e) applying the exception carved out in State of Rqjasthan v. Ramesh Lal Gehlot, to the case, it was found by labour court that termination of petitioner's services would come within the purview of retrenchment notwithstanding the provision of Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Central Act. A Special Leave Petition No. 6568 -6570 of 2001 from the above judgment and other connected cases was dismissed by Supreme Court on 29.4.2001, by order quoted as below :'Leaving the question of law open, these special leave petitions are dismissed.' In the above referred proceedings there was no stay of the award, except for the brief period between 12.4.2001 and 29.4.2001, when the special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court. Petitioner applied under Section 6H (1) of the Act for recovery under the award. Aggrieved against the recovery certificates of Rs. 35,040, Rs. 26,280 and thereafter Rs. 78.784, under Section 6H (1) of the Act by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the corporation filed a Writ Petition Nos. 32150 of 1997, 2789 of 1998 and 34381 of 1999, which were heard and were dismissed along with the main Writ Petition No. 30267 of 1997, and against which special leave petitions, were dismissed by the aforequoted order.
(3.) THE petitioner was reinstated by order dated 31.10.2001. She was permitted to join duties on 5.11.2001. The corporation is treating her as a daily wager. She is being paid Rs. 104 per day without benefits of weekly holidays, dearness allowance, bonus and other service benefits. By this writ petition she has prayed to regularise her services from 12.9.1991 ; to pay regular pay scale with effect from 12.9.1991 ; to give all service benefits promotional avenues, to quash order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated 27.12.2002, in pursuance of an interim order dated 26.11.2002 in this writ petition, by which the corporation has rejected her claim for regularisation, and regular salary for the reasons that she was engaged on dally wages, that her services were not against any sanctioned post, that there was no direction given by Court to treat her as regular employee ; that the corporation is suffering losses ; that the State Government has put a ban on any fresh appointment/ recruitment in the corporation, and that on a 'manpower audit' the corporation has surrendered 159 posts on daily wage basis which includes 12 sanctioned posts of steno/typist. The corporation also stated in the letter deciding her representation that on the recommendation of 'G.P. Gupta Committee' (constituted by Ministry of Finance, Government of India) the Board of Directors of the Corporation have decided against any fresh recruitment up to the year 2010.;