Delhi High Court
Archana Kumari vs M/S. G.D. Foods Manufacturing (I) ... on 10 February, 2014
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on February 10, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 953/2014
ARCHANA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.K.B.Hina , Advocate.
Versus
M/S. G.D. FOODS MANUFACTURING (I) PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Represented by: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
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 ` 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:
"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 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
