Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 893 (DEL)

BETWEEN, LALITHA C. PILLAI v. LT. GOVERNOR

2002-07-09

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2002
( 1 ) THE Petitioner says that she was employed by Respondent No. 3 from 15/07/1974 to 20/01/1976. An appointment letter dated 2/08/1974 has been placed on record which shows that the Petitioner was employed from 15/07/197 4/08/1974 on a purely temporary basis and her services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that her employment continued from time to time on the same terms and conditions. ( 2 ) IT is averred in paragraph 4 (d) of the writ petition that on 20/01/1976 when the petitioner was working in the office, she was suddenly given a notice terminating her service without assigning any reason for the termination. ( 3 ) IN view of this, the Petitioner sought to raise an industrial dispute challenging her illegal termination. She filed a statement of claim before the Assistant Labour Court, Delhi for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services. Respondent No. 3 gave its response to this statement and eventually by an order dated 6/04/1977, the Delhi administration (Labour Department) concluded that the case was not fit one for reference to the Industrial Tribunal/labour court for adjudication because the termination of the services of the Petitioner seemed to be in terms of the appointment letter. Against this, the Petitioner made a representation but the same was rejected on 1/11/1977 for the reason that the Delhi administration/labour Department felt that there was no ground to warrant a review of decision already communicated on 6/04/1977. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the two orders i. c. 6/04/1977 and 1/11/1977, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. ( 5 ) IN response to the averments made by the Petitioner in paragraph 4 (d) of the writ petition, Respondent No. 3 has merely stated that the services of the Petitioner could be terminated without any notice in terms of the letter of appointment. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 : 1976 (1) SCC 822 : 1976-I-LLJ-478 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that every termination of service spells retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 : 1976 (1) SCC 822 : 1976-I-LLJ-478 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that every termination of service spells retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. This has been reaffirmed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, labour Court, Orissa and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 31 : 1976 (4) SCC 222 : 1977-I-LLJ-l. ( 7 ) THE conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman have been mentioned in Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 which requires, inter alia, the giving of one month s notice in writing to a workman indicating the reasons for retrenchment or payment of wages for the notice period. As stated by the Petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, this condition precedent has not been complied with by the respondents No. 3 and this has not been denied by the Respondents in the counter affidavit. Under the circumstances, the question whether the services of the Petitioner were terminated in accordance with law or not will raise an industrial dispute which ultimately has to be adjudicated by the competent authority. ( 8 ) THE Delhi Administration (Labour department) merely stated that the termination was in accordance with the letter of appointment. This does not necessarily mean that the termination was in accordance with law particularly the provisions of Industrial disputes Act, 1947. Since an industrial dispute has arisen, the orders dated 6/08/1977 and 1/11/1977 are required to be set aside and the matter reconsidered by the Delhi administration (Labour Department) for referring the dispute between the parties to the industrial Tribunal/labour Court. It is ordered accordingly. ( 9 ) THE Respondent No. 2 will take a decision about referring the disputes between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal/labour court within a period of six weeks from today. ( 10 ) NO further orders are required to be passed. The petition stands disposed of. ( 11 ) A copy of the order be communicated to Respondent No. 2 by the registry of this court.