Civil Writ Petition No. 19205 of 2009 ***** The Divisional Forest Officer, Community Forestry Project, Bhiwani versus Smt. Bhateri and others Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ***** This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions No. 19205, 19227 and 19229 of 2009. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 19205 of 2009. Respondent, Smt. Bhateri, was engaged as daily wages labourer by the Forest Department, Haryana, Bhiwani. It is alleged that she failed to present herself for work during April, 1997. Subsequently, she served a demand notice on 28.02.2005, which was referred to Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bhiwani. The respondent filed a statement of claim before the labour Court in response to which the petitioner filed written statement. On the basis of pleadings, the labour Court has pronounced the award on 17.04.2009, which has now been impugned by the petitioner before this Court. The submission by the State counsel is that in view of the finding recorded by the labour Court that the respondent has not proved her services to be continuous, she would not be entitled to grant of compensation for settling equities as has been viewed by the labour Court. As per the counsel, question of equity would arise only Civil Writ Petition No. 19205 of 2009 -2- in case there is a finding that the termination order was bad due to violation of any statutory provisions. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman would plead that there is no finding recorded by the labour Court that the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days in the year preceding from the date of her termination. The finding given by the labour Court is that the respondent had worked from August 2002 to September, 2002. The finding further is that the respondent had given evidence that she had worked from 01.01.1994 to 31.07.1994, which was not found to be continuous service. The counsel for the respondent thus would contend that the labour Court was required to give a finding whether the petitioner had worked for 240 days or not, during the year preceding her termination. Both the sides thus appear to be aggrieved against the finding. Both counsel would also submit that the case can be remanded back to the labour Court for deciding the reference afresh so as to return a positive finding one way or the other, whether the respondent had worked for 240 days in the year preceding month the date of her termination. The plea made by the State counsel also appears justified that unless it is held that there is any violation of statutory provisions and the respondent had a right to continue in service, the compensation may not be awardable. It would be, thus, appropriate to remand these cases back to the labour Court for deciding afresh on the basis of the evidence already on record to return a finding if the respondent was able to establish that she had worked for 240 days or more during preceding 12 months from the date of her termination and thereafter Civil Writ Petition No. 19205 of 2009 -3- passed an appropriate order in accordance with law. The impugned Awards, therefore, are set aside and the cases are remanded back before the labour Court for fresh decision, in the light of the observation made above. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the labour Court on 25.08.2010. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. July 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE