Miss Kuri vs State & Ors on 10 November, 2008

S.B.C.W.P.No.2061/1996 - Miss Kuri vs. State & Ors.       Order dt:10/11/2008

                                            1/3


                S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2061/1996
                       (Miss Kuri vs. State & Ors.)

                        DATE OF ORDER : 10/11/2008

               HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI


Mr.Mrinmal Bhattmewara, for the petitioner.
Mr.Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Government Counsel.



1.      Heard learned counsels.

2.      This writ petition is directed against the award of Industrial

Tribunal dated 29/5/1995, whereby, the claim of petitioner was

rejected on the ground that she had never worked for continuous 240

days in any one calendar year. On the contrary, respondent P.W.D.

Department has produced the material before the Industrial Tribunal

to the effect that she was a casual worker, who worked for 8 days in

the year 1981, 17 days in the year 1982 and 17 days in the year 1984

and, therefore, she was not entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice in

compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner workman submits that under

the conciliation agreement Annex.1 dated 17/7/1978 in the list of 35

persons including the name of petitioner at serial no. 19, it was agreed

between the parties that these persons whose services were being
 S.B.C.W.P.No.2061/1996 - Miss Kuri vs. State & Ors.     Order dt:10/11/2008

                                            2/3


retrenched on account of non-availability of any work will be given

retrenchment compensation and, therefore, petitioner was entitled to

get said compensation. He further submits that list of these persons

vide Annex.1 indicate that petitioner was appointed in 1974.

4.      These submissions are opposed by learned counsel for the State

Mr.Rameshwar Dave, who submits that not only no evidence was led

by the applicant before the Industrial Tribunal for having worked for

continuous period of 240 days in one calendar year, on the contrary

evidence led by respondents clearly established that petitioner in fact

never worked for 240 days in one calendar year and she worked for

very small period in past three years as indicated above, therefore,

there is no question of compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act in the case of petitioner. He further submits that

petitioner was not entitled to the compensation in terms of Annex.1 -

Conciliation Agreement also because she had not completed two

years of service as stipulated in condition no. 1 of the said agreement

Annex.1.

5.      Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record,

this Court finds no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner inasmuch as Industrial Tribunal has clearly found that as a

matter of fact the petitioner never completed 240 days in a calendar
 S.B.C.W.P.No.2061/1996 - Miss Kuri vs. State & Ors.              Order dt:10/11/2008

                                            3/3


year and on the basis of evidence led by the respondent PWD

Department, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was not entitled to

retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. There was no entitlement of compensation as the

petitioner had not completed two years of service. This Court finds no

error in the impugned award of the learned Tribunal and this writ

petition being without force is liable to be dismissed. The same is

accordingly dismissed. No costs.



                                                      (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.

item no.s-10
baweja/-