Smt Vnitha vs The State of Karnataka and The District Officer Karnataka State Khadi and Village Chitradurga

Subhash B. Adi, J.—Petitioner has questioned the award dated 7th February 2011 in reference No. 10/2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Hubli. The petitioner sought for reference of a dispute u/s 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the termination of her service with effect from 31st December 1994.

The petitioner claimed that she was working as a Typist on daily wages basis from 01.07.1992 and she worked continuously up to 30th December 1994. As such, she completed continuous service of 240 days in a year. Her termination is violative of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner got herself examined as WW.1 and she produced Exs. W1 to W16. Amongst Exs. W.1 to W.16, Exs. W.4 and Ws. 5 to 14 are the documents, which are sought to be relied on to show that the petitioner had worked for a period of 240 days in a year as W.4 shows that the petitioner was employed as a Typist on daily wages basis from July 1993 to January 1995. MW. 1 examined on behalf of the respondent also admitted that the petitioner had worked up to 30th December 1994. Relying on these documents, the Labour Court held that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a year. However, it held that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement as the reference is sought after a lapse of more than eight years from the date of termination. Accordingly, in lieu of reinstatement, it has awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner. Unsatisfied with the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference is not stale and once it is held that the termination of service of the petitioner is violative of Section 25 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. He also relied on the judgement of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 524 in the matter of KULDEEP SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NSTRUMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES CENTRE AND ANOTHER. The evidence on record and the findings of the Labour Court show that the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year It is not in dispute that even according to the petitioner, she was refused employment on 31st December 1994 and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner sought for reference of the dispute only on 12.12.2003. Admittedly, reference itself is sought after a lapse of more than eight years from the date of termination of the petitioner. In such a stale reference, the Labour Court instead of directing reinstatement, has rightly stated that the compensation could be awarded. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner had worked only for two years between July 1993 to January 1994. Having regard to these circumstances, I find there is no ground to interfere with the award under Article 226 of the Constitution

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.