w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Archana Kumari v/s M/s. G.D. Foods Manufacturing (I) Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209WB1984PLC037758

Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209GJ1984PLC098951

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2010PTC198947

Company & Directors' Information:- G.D. FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1997PTC089673

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2013PTC057004

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17200DL2011PTC223768

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TZ2006PTC012940

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1991PTC051461

Company & Directors' Information:- A K MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909MN1988PTC003110

Company & Directors' Information:- I T A C (INDIA) MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Dissolved] CIN = L51109WB1982PLC034689

Company & Directors' Information:- G.D. INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51505KA1997PTC022060

Company & Directors' Information:- J D MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1996PTC079825

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U36900WB1991PTC005146

Company & Directors' Information:- B R D MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085188

Company & Directors' Information:- R J S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104DL1997PTC090521

Company & Directors' Information:- B U MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1982PTC035271

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26922WB1993PTC059837

Company & Directors' Information:- J. C. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21099WB2020PTC236821

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31506WB1999PTC088567

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. J. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29308DL2017PTC320213

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U28999GJ1973PTC002296

Company & Directors' Information:- J P MANUFACTURING AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51226WB1982PTC034927

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MANUFACTURING (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U37200WB2011PLC170403

Company & Directors' Information:- S M MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300HR1997PTC057824

Company & Directors' Information:- G K MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB2012PTC036073

Company & Directors' Information:- P & B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29254TN2010PTC076696

Company & Directors' Information:- B. V. H. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2018FTC100633

Company & Directors' Information:- R A MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36900HR2012PTC047669

Company & Directors' Information:- A K R MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19200RJ2012PTC041177

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64204DL2015PTC281449

    W.P.(C) No. 953 of 2014

    Decided On, 10 February 2014

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    For the Petitioner: K.B. Hina, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

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?

5. Relief.

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.
O R