1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2008 (Umeshwar Keshav Kathwate Vs. Conservator of Forests & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. U.A. Patil, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Badar, Adv. For R- 1 to 3. Mr. Adgokar, A.G.P. for R-4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 8 th October, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court on 8/9/2006 as also the common order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Petition ULP No. 60/2006 and Revision Petition ULP No. 62/2006, on 10/1/2008. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard by the respondents by an order dated 23/12/2003. After his appointment, the petitioner was sent for training. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner came to be illegally terminated on 29/1/2005 and hence, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court under the 2 provisions of Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondents filed their written statement. They pleaded that according to the terms and conditions of the employment on the post of Forest Guard, a candidate was required to have a minimum height of 163 cms. The petitioner was not eligible for appointment on the post of Forest Guard as, admittedly, the height of the petitioner was only 160 cms. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, for some time, the order of termination was stayed and the petitioner worked as Forest Guard. However, by the judgment dated 8/9/2006, the complaint filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and it was held that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practice and were liable to pay back wages to the petitioner till the date of the judgment and five years' salary as compensation. It was held by the Labour Court that the petitioner could have tried his luck for a job elsewhere had he not been selected on the ground of eligibility and hence, he was entitled to compensation from the respondents 3 who had put an ineligible person in service. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement. The respondents had challenged the order passed by the Labour Court so far as it directed the respondents to pay the back wages and to pay five years' salary as compensation, in revision before the Industrial Court. So also the petitioner challenged the order dated 8/9/2006 so far as it denied the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. The Industrial Court, Chandrapur, however, by the common order dated 10th January, 2008, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and partly allowed the revision filed by the respondents and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner. The order passed by the Labour Court, so far as it rejected the prayer for reinstatement, and the order passed by the Industrial Court on 10th January, 2008, are impugned in the instant writ petition. Mrs. Ujwala Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both the Courts committed an error in not reinstating the petitioner on the post of Forest 4 Guard as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the minimum height prescribed for the appointment on the post of Forest Guard was 163 cms., there was a relaxation of that condition as far as candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes are concerned and the relaxation could not have been refused in the case of the petitioner merely because the petitioner belongs to the Nomadic Tribe category and was not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court was not justified in partly allowing the revision filed by the respondents and reducing compensation to a great extent. The counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by the Industrial Court and also that of the Labour Court as far as it rejects the prayer of reinstatement of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to be continued in service in view of the fact that the petitioner was not eligible for holding 5 the post of Forest Guard. According to the counsel for the respondents, since it was noticed that the petitioner did not have the requisite eligibility, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The counsel for the respondents sought for the dismissal of the petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Both the Courts were justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be reinstated in service as the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, as the height of the petitioner was only 160 cms. and there was no provision for relaxation of the condition pertaining to the height so far as the Nomadic Tribes candidates were concerned. The Government Resolution of the Revenue and Forest Department dated 29th October, 1987 was produced before the Labour Court and is also a part of the record of this writ petition. It is apparent from clause 4 of the Government Resolution that height of the candidate should be atleast 163 cms. and the condition pertaining to the height may be 6 relaxed by the appointing authority in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category only. The petitioner was not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioner belongs to the Nomadic Tribe category. The petitioner had not challenged clause 4 of the Government Resolution. Considering the provisions of clause 4 as they stand, it is clear that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as a Forest Guard and, therefore, was rightly held to be not entitled to be reinstated in service. Also, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Industrial Court that there was no question of giving compensation to the petitioner equaling to five years' pay. The Industrial Court had rightly considered the fact that the petitioner was deprived of services for more than a couple of years and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as compensation. The judgments passed by the Labour and the Industrial Courts are just and reasonable so far as they deny the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner and the judgment passed by the Industrial Court is also 7 just and proper as far as it reduces compensation and grants compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP