S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 882 of 2011. Case: Superintendent, Ummed Hospital Vs Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 882 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Yashpal Khileree, Dy. Government Counsel |
| Judges | Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25A, 25B, 25F, 25G, 25H |
| Citation | 2011 (130) FLR 955 |
| Judgement Date | January 31, 2011 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In this writ petition, the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur has challenged the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 20th of January, 2010 (Annex. 7).
The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award submits that admittedly the respondent-workman was initially appointed in Ummed Hospital on 2nd April, 1988 and later on her services were extended from, time to time but she worked in currency of order passed by the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital till 24th of February, 1989. Thereafter the respondent workman served in Ummed Hospital through contractor and worked on contract basis till 12th of August, 1996.
Against discontinuance of her service, respondent workman raised industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and after failure of the proceedings for reconciliation, the matter was forwarded to the appropriate 5 Government for reference.
-
The appropriate Government, after considering the failure report forwarded by the Reconciliation officer, referred the dispute to the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur for adjudicating the following reference:--
-
After receiving reference from the Government, the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur issued notice to the workman as well as to the petitioner-employer.
-
Before the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur, the respondent-workman filed her claim and thereafter an opportunity to file reply was granted to the petitioner-department and after providing an opportunity to lead their evidence to both the parties, the Judge, Labour Court passed impugned award dated 20th of January, 2010.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Judge, Labour Court, passed award in favour of the respondent-workman and set aside the verbal termination order dated 12th of August, 1996 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
-
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that finding given by the Judge, Labour Court that respondent-workman worked 240 days in one calender year in the Hospital is totally erroneous because initially respondent-workman, was provided appointment vide order dated 24th of June, 1988 and she worked as an employee of the Hospital till 24th of February, 1989. Thereafter though the respondent workman worked but through contractor, therefore, it cannot be said that for termination, the petitioner-department was under obligation to follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial