The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to prove violation of Sections 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she had worked for 240 days in a calendar year with the Respondent, and that the termination amounted to retrenchment as per Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the Award dated 08.03.2004 ('Impugned Award') passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in I.D. No. 154/1990, titled as 'M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, through Medical Superintendent Vs Sh. Vinod Kumar & Smt. Gomati, through Hospital Employee's Union.'

2. Vide the said Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court while deciding the dispute referred to it, dismissed the claim of the Petitioner and held that the termination of Petitioner/Gomati is not illegal and/ or unjustified.

BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT WRIT PETITION

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was appointed on 21.12.1987 as a Safai Karamchari by the Respondent on daily wages/ muster roll/ casual worker and she was paid as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, she was illegally terminated from service on 24.07.1989 by the Respondent.

4. Hence, she raised an industrial dispute qua her illegal termination against the Respondent and the same was referred to a Conciliation Officer. But since the conciliation proceedings failed, the Delhi Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal vide Notification dated 13.03.1990 with the following reference:

"Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar and Smt. Gomati is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

5. The Petitioner filed her statement of claim before the learned Labour Court wherein she alleged that the Respondent terminated her services in violation of Sections 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act'). She alleged that she was served with no notice of termination, no seniority list was displayed, no notice pay was either paid or offered and lastly, no compensation was granted. The Petitioner stated that she was working with the Respondent from 21.12.1987 till 24.07.1989. However, she was deliberately given a break from service from 26.07.1988 till 04.05.1989 by the Respondent so that she does not get the status of permanent employee.

6. Per contra, the Respondent filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court, wherein it denied all the allegations of the Petitioner. The Respondent, on the contrary, stated that there was no lady named 'Gomati' who worked with the Respondent. Instead the Respondent stated that one Smt. Goma used to work with the Respondent from 21.12.1987 for 157 days. The Respondent further stated that Smt. Goma used to work against leave vacancy so that the work of the Respondent hospital did not suffer. Whenever the employee of the Respondent who used to be on leave came back to work, then the lady, Smt. Goma was not allowed to join duties.

7. Pursuant to the completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court did not make any additional issue except for the term of reference by the Delhi Government as mentioned above.

8. Learned Labour Court, vide the Impugned Award, after scrutinizing all the evidence produced before it by both the parties, decided the reference against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent. Learned Labour Court held that the termination of the Petitioner done by the Respondent was not illegal or unjustified as the Respondent successfully proved that the Petitioner was working as a daily wage worker on leave vacancies. Further, the Petitioner failed to prove that she worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, so her termination was not in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

9. Thus, being aggrieved by the Impugned Award, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging the Impugned Award.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

10. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 25G of I.D. Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 ('I.D.