LPA No. 1867 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1867 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 Divisional Forest Officer. ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ambala and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant. Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 5818 of 1993. By the said order the learned Single Judge has upheld the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala in Reference Case No. 185 of 1988 by which the relief of reinstatement with back wages has been granted to the respondent-workman. The primary basis on which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant and upheld LPA No. 1867 of 2010 [2] the impugned award of the learned Labour Court is that the objections of the appellant that the Forest Department is not an industry are without any merit or substance in view of certain judicial pronouncements, details of which are available in the order of the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Labour Court while the respondent- workman contended that the activities with which he was associated as a tractor driver in the Forest Department on daily wage basis were industrial activities, the appellant took the stand that such activities were not industrial so as to bring the Forest Department within the purview of the definition of 'industry' as contained in Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the assertion of the respondent-workman that he was engaged in connection with activities which were industrial activities carried out by the Forest Department stood unrebutted by the evidence of the appellant. Infact, according to the learned Labour Court, no evidence whatsoever on this score was led by the appellant to prove and establish that the Forest Department had not engaged the respondent- workman in any activity which could be termed as an industrial activity. While the aforesaid view taken by the learned Labour Court appears to be correct, according to us, the same would not end the controversy between the parties. The further question that the learned Labour Court was required to consider is whether having LPA No. 1867 of 2010 [3] found the discharge of the workman to be amounting to retrenchment without following the procedure prescribed by Section 25(F) and G) of the Act to be untenable in law, the learned Labour Court was required to further consider the reliefs that were to be awarded to the workman. In this regard, it was the duty of the learned Labour Court to consider whether having regard to the service rendered by the respondent (11 months i.e. from 04.12.1986 to 20.11.1987) an order of reinstatement with back wages was appropriate or retrenchment compensation would have met the ends of justice. The question of alternative reliefs that are awardable by the Industrial Adjudicator in a case where retrenchment is found to be unjustified has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments, the details of which need not to be noticed herein. The undisputed principle of law that can be culled out from the said decisions is that relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and Industrial Adjudicator had to take into account all the relevant facts, including the period of service rendered, in order to determine whether compensation or reinstatement would be an adequate and appropriate relief. In the present case, learned Labour Court has not so acted. Taking into account the period of service rendered it is our considered view that the learned Labour Court ought not to have granted the aforesaid relief of reinstatement with back wages and instead should have granted the relief of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the respondent-workman. The said error which has LPA No. 1867 of 2010 [4] been committed by the learned Labour Court not having been corrected by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge needs suitable modification. We accordingly modify the same by directing that instead of reinstatement with back wages compensation would be an adequate measure of relief to the workman. Taking into account the period for which the respondent-workman had remained out of employment (04.12.1986 to 20.11.1987) and further more taking into account that right from the inception of the writ petition in the year 1993, till date, the workman has been paid last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Act we quantify the compensation amount at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The said amount be paid to the respondent-workman by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the payment already made or to be made to the respondent-workman under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Letters Patent Appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 10.03.2011 'ravinder'