Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 10, 2014
ARCHANA KUMARI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.K.B.Hina , Advocate.
Represented by: None
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
JUDGMENT
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. 2014:DHC:773
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 ` 6050/- but the respondent was paying only ` 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:
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 February
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.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE FEBRUARY 10, 2014 akb