The earlier ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal was deemed a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the workwoman's claim for reinstatement to be adjudicated afresh.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Instant writ petition has been filed by Ms. Anita - workwoman, by challenging award dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (hereafter referred to as, 'the Labour Court'), in Reference No. 18 of 2015, whereby her claim for reinstatement in service, in terms of the reference referred to it for adjudication, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as, 'the 1947 Act'), has been declined on the ground of barred by the 'principle of resjudicata'.

The petitioner/workwoman, being employee of respondent No. 2, i.e. the General Officer Commanding, Golden Line Canteen, Head Quarter, PH & HP (1) Sub Area, Canteen Cell, Ambala Cantt. (management), has been non-suited by holding that the claim raised by the workwoman has already been entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as, 'the CAT'), in OA No. 822/HR/2003, titled as 'Anita v. Union of India and others, decided on 20.01.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby oral termination order dated 21.08.2003, has been held to be as per law.

2. In brief, claim of the petitioner/workwoman is that she is daughter of an Ex-serviceman, namely, S.S. Pati, and she was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator-cum-Sales Girl in the month of November, 1998, in the Golden Line Canteen, Defence Cinema, Ambala Cantt., under the Central Stores Department, Ambala Cantt. She was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1, 500/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2, 900/- per month. She was allowed to mark her attendance w.e.f. 01.08.1999. Without regularizing her services, the workwoman was terminated on 21.08.2003, by an oral order. As per SOPs, the workwoman was required to be served with one month's notice and also an opportunity before termination of her services. However, at the time of termination, neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation was paid to her. Even the principle of 'last come first go' has not been followed by the management, inasmuch as, persons junior to her, namely, Nirmal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Niranjan Singh and Prem Kumar etc., were retained in service. Not only this, the Management appointed certain new persons, after termination of the services of the petitioner/workwoman.

3. Challenging the said order of oral termination, dated 21.08.2003, the workwoman approached the CAT, by filing OA No. 822/HR/2003. However, without examining the position of law, the action of termination was held to be valid by the CAT, vide its order dated 20.01.2004 (Annexure P-1). For convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 20.01.2004 (Annexure P-1), is reproduced hereunder:-

"5. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is neither an ex-serviceman nor is the widow of an ex-serviceman. She is therefore, not entitled for employment in the unit run canteen. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that she was given casual appointment on humanitarian grounds and her services have now been terminated by an oral order. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to cite any rule under which her services could not have been terminated. In fact, the applicant neither could produce any appointment letter nor any termination order. It is thus evident that she was appointed in the Canteen purely on casual basis and as such, she does not have any legal right for continuing in the service. The question of giving any show cause notice before termination, therefore, does not arise.

6. As a result, the OA turns out to be totally devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

4. Perhaps, under the impression that the establishment, i.e. Golden Lion Canteen, Ambala Cantt., is governed by the Central Government, vide notification No. L-14012/2/2007(IR(DU)), dated 23