CWP No. 18865 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18865 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 05th October, 2011. Birmati More Petitioner through Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate Versus The Presiding Officer & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 28.02.2011 [Annexure P4] passed by the Labour Court – cum – Industrial Tribunal, Panipat whereby the industrial dispute, namely, as to whether termination of services of the work-lady – Smt. Birmati More is legal or justified or not? - has been answered against her. [2]. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Female Planning Field Worker by the District Red Cross Society, Panipat on 02.06.2000 in the pay scale of 400-600 and her services were terminated on 03.09.2002 without paying any retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 06.05.2003 and the dispute raised by her was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat for adjudication. The Tribunal, as noticed above, has answered the reference against the petitioner and dismiss the same. [3]. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified or not? CWP No. 18865 of 2011. ::-2-:: [4]. The plea taken by the respondent – District Red Cross Society, Panipat was that the Director, Health Services, Haryana, vide letter dated 20.06.2002 reduced 50% of the grant-in-aid of the said Society and as a result thereto, the Red Cross Society had no means to pay the salary. The petitioner was offered appointment on the post of ANM vide letter dated 16.07.2003 but she refused to accept the alternative employment. [5]. Learned Labour Court found that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on contractual basis and her services were terminated not only after paying one month's salary as per terms and conditions of the engagement, but the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were also complied with inasmuch as an amount of `14,476/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner by the Society on 03.09.2002 and an entry to this effect was made in her account on 04.09.2002. The Labour Court further found that the petitioner was given appointment by her own husband under his signatures, who was presumably holding some higher post in the District Red Cross Society, Panipat or the District Administration. The petitioner, thus, could not be permitted to urge that her services were terminated illegally, held the Labour Court. [6]. The petitioner aggrieved, has approached this Court. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. In my considered view, the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Court for more than one reasons. Even without going into the propriety or legality of the petitioner's appointment, who was apparently inducted by her husband without advertising the post or following the selection CWP No. 18865 of 2011. ::-3-:: process, the fact remains that the petitioner's temporary appointment was terminable on one month's notice on either side. The Red Cross Society terminated her service as the State Government imposed 50% cut on the grant-in-aid, due to which the Society was unable to pay the salary. Still further the Society/Management complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and deposited the due amount of retrenchment compensation on 03.09.2002 itself which was duly credited in the account of the petitioner on the very next day. It also appears that the Society offered alternative employment to the petitioner which was refused by her. [8]. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award. [9]. Dismissed. October 05, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE