Anish Dayal ORDER
Anish Dayal, J.
1. This petition assails award dated 14th November, 2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka in LIR No. 7886/2016 ("the impugned award"). The Ld. Labour Court vide the impugned award has rejected the petitioner's claim against the respondent management for reinstatement with full back wages.
Factual Background
2. As per the claim of the petitioner, she was working with the respondent management since 10th December, 2011 at the post of a "checker" and her last drawn salary was Rs. 7,000/-per month. She had been working with sincerity and diligence, however, no facilities such as bonus, minimum wages, ESI, PF were given to her and she was compelled to work for more than 12 hours per day without being paid overtime. She alleges that on 18th January, 2013, when she went to the washroom, the nephew (Rachit) of the owner of the establishment pushed her inside the washroom and tried to outrage her modesty. But when the petitioner raised her voice, he fled away. She made a complaint to the owner (Mr. Praveen Jain) who, instead of taking any action against his nephew, terminated the services of the petitioner on the same day and withheld her salary from November 2012-January, 2013. The petitioner stopped going to work after 18th January, 2013.
3. On 19th January, 2013, she alleges that she received a call from Rachit, asking her to come to the office, but she refused to go. However, upon receiving a call from someone else, she went to the office. Upon reaching there, Rachit tried to misbehave with her again, and the petitioner had to run to her working place and wait for the owner. When she disclosed this to the owner, he asked her to go back home and the petitioner returned home.
4. On 24th January, 2013, the owner asked the petitioner to come to office and collect her dues as well as her gold ring which had apparently fallen off during her scuffle with Rachit. However, when she reached the office, Rachit abused the petitioner and forced her out of the premises. The petitioner made a PCR call and thereafter, she along with the petitioner and Rachit visited the police station, where efforts were made to reach a compromise, but to no avail. The petitioner was once again called to the office on 28th January, 2013, when Rachit again misbehaved, after which the petitioner lodged an FIR, being FIR No. 59/2013 ("the FIR"), on 28th January, 2013.
5. Though she hoped that her services will be reinstated, this was not done by the respondent management. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file a complaint on 11th July, 2013 before Labour Office, Jhilmil, which was followed by another complaint dated 09th March, 2015 and a legal notice. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to the legal notice sent by her, the dispute was referred to the Ld. Labour Court for adjudication, and the impugned award was rendered by the Ld. Labour Court.
6. Vide the impugned award, the Ld. Labour Court decided the dispute in favour of the respondent management, and, inter alia, observed that there were major contradictions between the petitioner's stated case in the FIR when compared to the statement of claim. Moreover, the petitioner herself expressed her intention to abandon her service before the owner, Praveen Jain. Therefore, the Ld. Labour Court observed that the present case was one of abandonment of service, and not that of illegal termination by the management. Furthermore, the Ld. Labour Court held that the petitioner was unable to discharge the onus of proving that she had been in service for 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination, and therefore, she cannot avail the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act").
Submissions on behalf of the
7. The petitioner's counsel contended that the impugned award has erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim,........