SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner (for short 'employer') seeks to set aside the award dated 7.8.1996 of Labour Court Kota, whereby the reference made to it under section 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') was answered and it was held that the removal of the respondent No. 2 (for short 'workman') from the services by the employer was bad in law and she was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages.
(2.) On reference being made under section 10(1)(g) of the Act, the workman filed statement of claim stating therein that she was appointed as Assistant on 1.1.1976 with the employer. Her salary was increased from time to time. On 14.4.1982 when the workman went on duty she was not allowed to sign on the attendance register and with effect from 14.4.1982 her services were terminated,
(3.) The employer submitted reply to the statement of claim raising preliminary objection that since the workman does not come within the definition of workman, she was not entitled to seek protection under the Act. It was also pleaded that the workman had filed civil suit, which was ultimately withdrawn by her. Since the workman was appointed on the post of Teacher and she did not fulfill the requisite qualification, she was not entitled to remain in the service. The workman filed affidavit, on which she was cross-examined. Whereas Ganeshilal Raniwala filed affidavit on behalf of the employer and he was also cross-examined. Learned Judge, Labour Court on hearing final submissions answered the reference as indicated herein above.;