- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 7.3.2006 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala whereby the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of respondent no.1 - workwoman with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) THE reason for which the reinstatement was ordered that the workwoman in her demand notice specifically has taken the plea that she was working since February, 1991 as Mali and her services were terminated in April, 1998 and other persons had been kept in her place and the work was still continuing and juniors to her were still working. The plea of having worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months had also been taken. However, the same was not accepted by the Labour Court. The deposition of the workwoman whereby she had named Zile Singh, Ram Kumar, Gian and Jagbir etc., who had been appointed in her place after termination of her services was noticed to bring into play the provisions of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was noticed that no cross question/suggestion had put to the workwoman on this issue regarding the said employees. It was also noticed that other ladies, namely, Satya, Jito, Parmo and Bala etc. had also been working and MW -2 Gian Chand, Forest Ranger in his cross -examination had denied that one Debo, Silo Devi, Prithvi, Satya, Sundri and Lilo Devi had worked with the workwoman. However, the Labour Court examined the muster rolls including the documents Ex. M2/5 to Ex. M2/11 to record a finding that Debo, Sito, Jito and Prithvi etc. did work with the petitioner as daily wager during the aforesaid period especially in the months of August, 1992 to March, 1993. These facts are mentioned in paragraph 15 of the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) VIDE order dated 28.8.2006, counsel for the State had taken time to ascertain the status of appointment of the persons mentioned in para 15 of award and whether they were senior to the respondent no.1 - workwoman. An affidavit of Sh. B.S.Khosa, H.F.S., Divisional Forest Officer, Seed Collection Division, Pinjore thereafter was filed on 7.12.2010 wherein it was admitted that Jeeto has worked as daily wager in the petitioner -department in the month of August, 1992 only. However, nothing was mentioned as to whether she was senior to the workwoman or not. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads as under: - "That it is true fact that Satya, Parmo, Bala etc. were not daily wagers in the petitioner department. Only Jeeto has worked as daily wager in the petitioner department in the month of August, 1992 only as per official record i.e. muster roll and Debo, Sito and Prithvi did not work with petitioner as daily wagers in the month of August, 1992 and March, 1993. The Department has done no willful violation of any provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it was also admitted that the workwoman has been reinstated with effect from 3.5.2007 to avoid any financial loss. Thus, a perusal of the paragraph 3 of the affidavit would go on to show that there is no denial or nothing has been placed on record which could show that Jeeto was senior to the workwoman and that the finding recorded by the Labour Court was without any basis. It is also a matter of record that in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 33 -C(2) of the Act, the workwoman was successful in getting an order in her favour on 7.12.2012 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,29,850/ - was awarded to her along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the actual realization.;