- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P1), passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby the respondent-workwoman has been held entitled for reinstatement along with continuity of service along with 50% back wages from the date of issuance of the demand notice, i.e., 21.12.2002.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that firstly, two demand notices were initially issued, i.e., on 29.10.2002 & 19.12.2002, which were withdrawn, which would go on to show that the workwoman had concealed certain facts and secondly, that the workwoman was appointed as a Teacher and not as a Clerk and therefore, she was not entitled to maintain the industrial dispute as she would not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). Lastly, it has been submitted that the letter of appointment dated 10.04.1995 was a conditional appointment and was not put into practice and she had never worked as a Clerk.
(3.) Counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference due to the non-production of record, which was in the custody of the Management.;