Nanki Bai Vs Sub Divisional Officer

The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Act, Surguja in Case No. 69/I.D.Act/2007(R), whereby the learned Labour Court decided the reference against the petitioner and dismissed the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with full back wages.

¶17

The facts of the present case are that initially, the petitioner was employed as a daily wager on the post of Chowkidar / Waterman under respondent No. 1 since 01.01.1980 without any break. She worked for

¶18

2

¶19

240 days in a calendar year. It is further pleaded that she worked for more than 16 years and, therefore, the amount of gratuity was also paid by the Controlling Authority to the tune of Rs.10,153/- vide order dated 18.08.2006. It is pleaded that the services of the petitioner were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing on 01.01.1996 by an oral order. The petitioner moved an application before the Labour Commissioner, Raipur and the matter was referred to the Labour Court according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was made on framing two issues i.e. (i) whether the termination of services of the petitioner is valid and (ii) whether she is entitled to the relief of reinstatement. The petitioner filed a statement of claim on 03.06.2008 stating that in a calendar year, she worked for 240 days. She further pleaded that her services were terminated without any reason and without affording the opportunity of hearing contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶20

The department filed a reply and denied the statement of claim. It was stated by the department that the petitioner did not work for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, her services were discontinued as there was no need for her services.

¶21

The learned Labour Court vide award dated 29.05.2014 dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year; she was working in the department for more than 16 years; the amount of gratuity for services rendered by the petitioner for the period of 16 years was also paid; no opportunity of hearing was afforded, and the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act were not

¶23

3

¶24

complied with. He would further contend that the petitioner proved the fact that she worked in the department for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further contend that the department failed to produce any document to prove the contrary. He would also contend that the burden was on the department to prove that the petitioner did not work for 240 days. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambikapur.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner failed to produce any document to establish that she worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further contend that the petitioner was a daily rated employee and there was no need for her services, therefore, her services were discontinued by the department. He would also submit that there was no need to make payment of one month’s salary prior to termination of services. He contended that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and these facts have been considered by the learned Labour Court. He would state that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶27

From a perusal of the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is apparent that the petitioner worked for more than 16 years since she was paid gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,153/- vide order dated 18.08.2006. The services of the petitioner were discontinued on 01.01.1996. The petitioner filed a statement of claim claiming therein reinstatement with full back wages and pursuant

¶28

4

¶29

to an application moved by the petitioner, a reference was made and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. In the statement of the claim, though the petitioner pleaded that she worked for 240 days in the calendar year of 1995, but she could not produce any document to demonstrate. It is also evident from the order passed by the learned Labour Court that an application was moved by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to produce relevant documents in this regard. The petitioner has stated that she worked for 240 days, but that is not a requirement. The workman has to plead and prove that he or she worked for 240 days in a calendar year to get the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, the learned Labour Court examined the issues and recorded a finding that the petitioner could not prove the fact that she worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It is also held by the learned Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act would not attract as the petitioner was a daily rated employee and she could not prove the fact that she worked for 240 days in a calendar year in the year 1995.

¶30

Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned.

¶31

Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

vatti

Nanki Bai v. Sub Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanki Bai v. Sub Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chetan Gayakwad

Gulshan Kumar Saluja Vs Satish Kumar Saluja

Srishti Sinha Vs Ravishkant Agrawal

M/S Jitendra Kumar Thakur, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota Vs The State Of C.g. and Ors.

Ku. Sunita (Died), Lrs Sahodari Pando Vs the Chairman