1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4343/2001 State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Bheru Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 19.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Bhati, for the petitioner. ... A challenge is given to the order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned labour court, Udaipur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 21.8.1995. Learned labour court after considering the entire evidence available on record reached at the conclusion that the workman was employed with the employer on casual basis w.e.f. 1.4.1990, thus, on completion of two years' satisfactory service he was entitled for conferment of semi permanent status. While assailing validity of the award impugned the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Department of Forest is not an industry, and therefore, the labour court could not have entertained the reference made by the appropriate government. Secondly, the labour court erred while directing the employer to grant semi permanent status w.e.f. 1.4.1993. So far as the first question is concerned that whether the Department of Forest is an industry is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however the right claimed by the petitioner is under the applicable standing orders of 1973 wherein it is specifically provided that a workman is required to be considered for grant of semi permanent status on completion of 2 years of satisfactory services. In view of it, even if it is assumed that the department of forest is not an 2 industry the employer is required to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of semi permanent status on basis of the applicable standing orders. So far as the direction given to allow semi permanent status to the respondent workman w.e.f. 1.4.1993 is concerned that is based on adequate appreciation of evidence available. It is the position admitted that the respondent workman was employed in regular cadre of the forest department on 1.4.1990 and as such he completed two years of service on 1.4.1992. Learned labour court looking to the fact that prior to 1.4.1993 no person in the department concerned was granted semi permanent status allowed the same to the respondent-workman the status aforesaid w.e.f. 1.4.1993, the date on which the same status was conferred to other similarly situated employees. The award impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '