Santosh Kumari Petitioner v. Presiding Officer And Others S

Rajesh Bindal J.

The petitioner, who was working as part-time Sweeper with the management, has approached this court impugning the award dated 5.6.2012, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby she has been directed to be paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner had worked since August, 1999 till December, 2004, her services having been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal should have directed for her reinstatement instead of payment of compensation.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. As is evident from the material on record, the petitioner was appointed only on a salary of Rs. 275/- per month in August, 1999 for working one hour daily. Even the minimum wages payable to a workman at that time were about Rs. 1,000/- per month. The issue regarding non-payment thereof was not raised by the petitioner during her alleged service period, if she was working on full time basis. It was raised only when she was not engaged for working on part-time basis.

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in not directing reinstatement of the petitioner back in service but directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

Dismissed.