- (1.) The respondent-Delhi Public School, Panipat Refinery Township, Panipat is run from a building provided by the Panipat Refinery which is owned and managed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOC). The school is established mostly to impart education to the children of employees of the Panipat Thermal Plant. Hithertofore, the housekeeping activities in the respondent school were managed on its own till the work involved was outsourced from April 01, 2005. It cannot be said that the integral activity of housekeeping was shut down since it continued in the hands of the IOC. Afterward, no person was engaged directly by the school to carry out its housekeeping activities. The petitioner who was employed by the school since April 01, 1998 became a victim of the new system introduced. She used to be paid a monthly salary of Rs.2500/- while in service. She was disengaged from service on April 01, 2005 after seven years of continuous work. This gave rise to a dispute which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat for adjudication.
(2.) What is urged by the respondent in defence of the award is that closure compensation under Section 25 FFF was offered to the petitioner vide cheque Ex.M1 but the same was refused by the workman. However, before the Labour Court, no direct evidence of closure was adduced on record by the management. It is argued that closure of a part of the activities of the school amounts to closure with all consequences arising therefrom under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'ID Act')
(3.) In the written statement filed by the management before the Labour Court the defence taken in order to rebut the claim of the workman was that the school authorities had abandoned housekeeping work and since this type of work was stopped the workman was offered compensation but she did not collect the amount of compensation and by this act she had disentitled herself to the relief of reinstatement and back wages. In the demand notice under Section 2-A of the ID Act [treated as a statement of claim before the Labour Court] it was pleaded by the worker that she worked as a Sweeper from 1998 to 2005 and her services were terminated without notice or inquiry and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 [sic 25-F] of the Act as well as Sections 25-N and 25-G. In para.4 the workman asserted that she had completed 240 days in a calendar year. She was a member of the Provident Fund and was issued an Identity Card by the management. In reply to para.4 the management in rebuttal pleaded that when the housekeeping activities were closed by the school management the worker was offered compensation in compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and it was the worker who had deliberately and purposely not accepted the said amount of compensation and had instead served a demand notice on the school management. The amount was offered through cheque No.695572 dated April 12, 2006 for a sum of Rs.12,361/- drawn on State Bank of India, Panipat Branch (Ex.M-1) which was tendered by way of evidence through an application accompanying the written statement and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.;