At, High Court of Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
For the Petitioner: K.B. Hina, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM No. 1917/2014
This is an application filed seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the annexure P-1 to P-6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
W.P.(C) No. 953/2014
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated February 28, 2013 in I.D. No. 501/11 passed by the Labour Court-XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Labour Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner on the ground that she had not completed 240 days of continuous service with the respondent-management in the preceding 12 months.
2. Some of the relevant facts are, it was the case of the petitioner she was employed by the respondent-management on December 01, 2008 as ‘Helper’ and her last drawn salary was Rs.6050/- but the respondent was paying only Rs.2600/- in hand. It is also her case that when she went to her village due to the death of her grandmother on June 14, 2011, she had sought permission from the respondent and even sent a leave application dated June 13, 2011 by registered post, but, when she came back and reported for duty on July 08, 2011, the management gave her the Termination/Discharge Letter dated July 04, 2011. It is under these circumstances that she had filed a claim petition before the Labour Court seeking her reinstatement in services with continuity and all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent opposed the claim of the petitioner. Four issues were framed by the Labour Court as under:
1. Whether the claimant had been working with the management regularly since 1.12.08 at the post of Helper drawing wages @ Rs.6050/- per month?
2. Whether the claimant remained absent from her duties intentionally w.e.f. 15.02.11?
3. Whether the claimant completed 240 days of continuous service with the management during the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of her termination?
4. Whether the services of the worklady have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
4. Insofar as the issue No. 3 is concerned, the Labour Court has in Para 29 and 30 has come to the following conclusion:
'29. Now coming to the salary part. Once the worklady has admitted that she was getting the salary on the basis of working days, the assistance from the salary register can be taken which has been admitted to be correct by the worklady and the same has already been exhibited as Ex.MW1/24. The worklady has received the salary for 8 working days in June 2010, no salary for the month of July 2010 as she was absent for the whole month. She got the salary only for 5 days in the month of August 2010. She got the salary of 13 days in the month of September 2010. The salary register for the month of October 2010 has not been filed on court record by the management and therefore, it would be deemed that the worklady has got the salary of 31 in the month of October 2010. The workman got the salary of 6 days in November 2010. The salary registers for the month of December 2010 and January 2011 have not been filed on court record by the management and therefore, it would be deemed that the worklady has got the salary of 31 days in the month of December 2010 and January 2011. The worklady got the salary of 11 days in the month of February 2011. She got the salary of 12 days in the month of March 2011. The salary register for the month of April 2011 has not been filed on court record by the management and therefore, it would be deemed that the worklady has got the salary of 30 days in the month of April 2011. The salary register for the month of May 2011 has not been filed on court record by the management and therefore, it would be deemed that the worklady has got the salary of 31 days in the month of May 2011. The worklady got the salary of 13 days in the month of June 2011.
30. From this calculation it means that the worklady has only received the salary of 224 days approximately in the last preceding year from 5.07.10 to 4.07.11 i.e. the date of alleged termination as the salary register as produced by the management is also admitted to be correct by the worklady. Therefore, the worklady has neither been able to prove that she has actually worked continuously in the preceding year with the management nor she has been able to prove that she has worked for continuously 240 days with the management or even that she has taken the salary of 240 days from the management during the preceding 12 months or that she was on authorized leave for any period during the last one year. Therefore, the worklady has not been able to prove that she has completed 240 days of continuous service with the management during the preceding 12 months'.
5. From the conclusion of the Labour Court as reflected above, it is clear that the petitioner had only worked for 224 days in the last preceding year from July 05, 2010 to July 04, 2011 i.e. date of termination of the petitioner.
6. This finding of the Labour Court is of relevance as this would determine whether the termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the period of 240 days has to be seen from the date of initial appointment. She would further state, in the month of February 2011, she was on authorized leave and the leave period should have been taken into consideration for computing 240 days. In this regard, I may only note that in Para 29 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner had got salary for 11 days in the month of February 2011. In other words, the period during which she had taken leave, no salary was paid. There is no challenge by the petitioner to the non-payment of the wages for the month of Febr
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
uary 2011. In the absence of any challenge, it must be construed that the petitioner had only worked for 11 days in the month of February 2011. The Labour Court has rightly comes to a conclusion that the petitioner had only worked for 224 days in the year preceding the date of termination. 8. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is an issue of fact, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not like to interfere with the same. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. 9. No costs.