Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners have impugned the award of the Labour Court, Bhatinda dated 14.3.2005. The Respondent/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect: Whether termination of services of workman Shakuntla Devi is justified and in order? If not, so, to what relief is she entitled?
(2.) THE Respondent/workman had raised a demand and alleged that he was appointed as a Part Time Peon since 10.7.1991 on a permanent job @ Rs. 119/ - per month/per hour as her wages and her work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, her services were terminated on 19.2.1994 verbally and without assigning any reason. She pleaded that she was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and his termination was illegal without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. She further pleaded that since persons juniors to her have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. The Petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the Respondent was not a workman. She was appointed as a Part Time Peon for four hours daily on the D.C. rates. Her term of appointment expired on 19.2.2004 and she was relieved from her duty. It was also pleaded that the Respondent had not completed 240 days of service and denied that any person junior to the Respondent was working with the Petitioner.
(3.) THE Tribunal concluded that the Respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the Respondent/workman along with 40% of the back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 4.5.2001.;