- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - (A) The relief portion of the award passed in Ref. Case nos. 1 of 93 (Annexure -3) be modified to the extent of reinstatement with back wages. (B) The last portion of the order/Award dated 3rd January, 2003 whereby and whereunder the Management is directed to pay only one month's wages and compensation to the workman in terms of Sec. 25F even after holding that the concerned workman has not been given one month notice one month wages in terms of the Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act to be modified or extended for reinstatement with back wages.
(2.) THE facts in brief as stated by the petitioner is set out as under: - The petitioner joined her service in Tata D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad in the month of April, 1998 as an 'Aaya'. Her duty hours were from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and she performed her duty regularly. However, no appointment letter was issued to her but on 21.2.1990 she was issued a letter indicating that she was a part -time "Aaya". On 30.6.1991 service of the petitioner was transferred to D.A.V. Public School, Kedla, Hazaribagh on enhancing salary to Rs. 5000/ - per month where she worked uptill 27.7.1991 and thereafter she was disallowed and the Director asked her to report at Tata D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad but the Principal did not allow her to join her duty and verbally terminated her. The petitioner, being constrained, raised an industrial dispute and upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred for adjudication vide notification dated 16.12.1992 in the following terms: - "Whether the termination of service of Smt. Manorma Devi, Aaya, D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad is justified? If not whether she should be reinstated on work orland she be given compensation."
(3.) INITIALLY a writ petition was filed being C.WJ.C. No. 3669/1999 challenging the earlier award dated 16.12.1998 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/93 wherein the petitioner was held to be a permanent employee and the termination order was held to be illegal. In the writ petition filed by the employer, respondent herein, challenging the aforesaid award dated 16.12.1998, this Court set aside the award dated 16.12.1998 and remitted the matter for fresh decision confined to the issue as to whether the workman was given on€ month's notice or in lieu of notice one month's wages in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or not.;