HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17341 of 2001 Date: November 26, 2010 Between: G. Lakshmi. … Petitioner And 1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, rep. by its Chairman and Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17341 of 2001 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award dated 08.01.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D. No.69 of 1999, the petitioner therein is before this Court. By the said award, the Labour Court directed the Municipal Council, Karimnagar to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards compensation. 2. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that she was appointed as a Woman Mazdoor in the service of the Municipal Council, Karimnagar on 01.11.1990 and that she worked continuously as such up to 31.3.1992. She claimed to have been removed from service on 01.4.1992 in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Municipal Council contested her claim by stating that she was not appointed as a Woman Mazdoor and hence, there was no question of her being terminated. It also raised the aspect of delay on her part in filing the I.D. The petitioner examined herself as W.W.1 and another workman as W.W.2. The Municipal Council examined its Sanitary Supervisor as M.W.1. He deposed to the effect that the petitioner was engaged as a Woman Mazdoor on daily wages which were paid at the end of each month. He however denied that she had put in 240 days in the relevant year and that she was removed from service. 3. The Labour Court, seized of these facts, did not go into the aspect as to whether the petitioner was retrenched from service in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It merely relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketting-cum-Process Service Ltd.,[1] in the context of the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Labour Court and observed that as the petitioner had kept quiet for more than 4 years, she was not entitled to be reinstated in service. Consequently, it awarded compensation for 12 months at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, quantified at Rs.6,000/-. Aggrieved by the denial of the reliefs sought, the petitioner filed the present case. 4. The award under challenge reflects that the Labour Court completely lost sight of the scope of the inquiry in the case before it. The petitioner had filed the subject petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that she was retrenched in violation of the prescribed procedure. The Labour Court therefore ought to have gone into this issue in the context of the defence put forth by the respondent Municipal Council that she had not put in the requisite 240 days in the relevant year. Without returning a finding on this aspect, the Labour Court ought not to have directly proceeded to the issue of whether the petitioner should be reinstated in service or whether she was entitled to compensation. If the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s retrenchment was illegal, it could have then gone on to the issue as to whether she was entitled to reinstatement or the alternate relief of being compensated monetarily. It may also be noted that in such cases, compensation payable to the aggrieved workman would not be merely the retrenchment compensation which was denied to him/her but would also be commensurate to the injustice done to the workman owing to the illegality of the retrenchment and the loss of employment opportunities which resulted therefrom. These aspects were completely lost sight of by the Labour Court as is evident from the award under challenge. 5. The award dated 08.01.2001 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, for adjudication afresh on the basis of the material available on record in the light of the observations made supra. Considering the fact that the matter has been kept pending for a sufficiently long time, the Labour Court, Godavarikhani is requested to take up this matter on priority basis and dispose of the same expeditiously and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 26, 2010. BSB [1] 1999 LLR 529