IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.18261 of 2000 The Addl.Block Development Officer Marakkanam Panchayat Union Markkanam, Dindivanam Taluk Villupuram District .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Aaliappan 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in I.D.No.69/97 dated 27.3.2000 on the file of the Labour Court at Cuddalore/2nd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Raghupathi For Respondents :: Mr.K.M.Ramesh for R1 R2- Labour Court O R D E R The petitioner was working as an Additional Block Development Officer. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the second respondent- Labour Court in I.D.No.69/97 dated 27.03.2000, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.10.2000. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire backwages with the second respondent Labour Court, which in turn was directed to invest it in Canara Bank, Tiruvanmiyur Branch for a period of five years. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the payment of last drawn wages in terms of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). 3. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 01.09.2003, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that the conditions imposed by this court had been complied with. It is also stated by Mr.V.Raghupathi learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.16,800/- was deposited with the Labour Court which in turn had been deposited in the Canara Bank. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is not sure whether the monthly payments have been paid to his client. In any event, that issue need not deter in deciding the main Award and can be decided at the time of grant of relief. 4. The case of the Workman/First respondent before the Labour Court was that he had been working since 1982 under the Social Forestry Scheme. His services were dispensed with, with effect from 01.11.1996 without assigning any no reasons. However, the petitioner before the Labour Court took the stand that the Social Forestry Scheme which was earlier entrusted to the Panchayat Unions were taken away from their control by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.231 Rural Development Department dated 15.10.1996. It was also stated that the implementation of the Social Forestry Scheme was given to the Panchayat union only for an effective supervision. It was implemented under the erstwhile National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)/National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NRLEGP). The posts sanctioned were continued only upto 30.09.1995. Thereafter, the Panchayat union were directed to continue the Scheme under the Jawahar Velai Vaipu Thittam (JVVT) up to 31.10.1996. Subsequently, the Scheme had been taken over by the Forest Department and therefore, there was no scope to retain the workman/first respondent in service. 5. The Labour Court held that inasmuch as the workman/first respondent rendered services it can be brought under the term 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. As he had continued for number of years, he cannot be sent out without complying with Section 25-F of the I.D.Act. It was also held that there was no justification to keep such persons temporarily for long number of years and this will amount to unfair labour practice. The Labour Court further held that before his services were dispensed with on 01.11.1996, he had put in 240 days' of service in the previous year and the condition precedent found under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act was not complied with. Hence, his termination was illegal. 6. Even though the Labour Court referred to the defence of the petitioner that the first respondent was neither employed in a permanent capacity nor in a temporary capacity and that too in an Extension Scheme maintaining the Social Forestry Project and the Scheme itself had been taken away, there was no necessity to retain the workers. The appointment was not made in terms of any government rules. However, the Labour Court had rejected their stand and directed his reinstatement with backwages. 7. Mr.V.Raghupathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the Labour Court was erroneous. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that the Panchayat union was not an Employer and the Social Forestry Scheme was entrusted to the Panchayat Union only for its effective implementation. In the absence of funding, the Scheme itself had been taken over by the Forest Department and there was no scope for the Panchayat to continue the services of Plot Watchers. If at all the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has any claim, it cannot be with the Panchayat union and it lies elsewhere. Since the Panchayat Union was only an executing agency and technically not an employer of the Workman/First respondent, the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. The Social Forestry Project, executed by the Forest department has been held to be an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act in the decision reported in 1998(1)CLR 373 (Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Hissar v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hissar and another) 8. The Labour Court made hypothetical approach and did not go into the larger issue as to who should be the employer of the first respondent and on what basis his employment can be continued by the Panchayat Union. In any event, the fact that the Scheme had been entrusted to the Forest Department and the Panchayat Union has no longer control over the scheme, there was no necessity to keep the first respondent in service. Therefore, the only issue that has to be decided was whether it is a case for retrenchment or closure of the Scheme. Then what should be the relief the workman can get. 9. Chapter V-A of the I.D.Act provides for certain compensation and notice pay in cases of retrenchment and closure. The Labour Court found that the conditions precedent under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act was not followed. But at the same time even in such matters if there was an infraction of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act there can be no scope to order reinstatement if the employment was either contractual, temporary or project oriented. In those circumstances, the Labour court can mould the relief by granting compensation in liew of reinstatement or the statutory compensation provided under the Act. See: 2007 (9) SCC 748 10. In the present case, the approach of the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement that too with backwages and continuity of service cannot be appreciated. At the same time, the workman cannot be left high and dry in such case of sudden non-employment. 11. In the light of the above, the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.69 of 1997 dated 27.03.2000 stands set aside in so far as it directed reinstatement and backwages. However, the first respondent/Workman is entitled to get compensation. Since the Management had already deposited Rs.16,800/- which is lying with Canara Bank, Tiruvanmiyur Branch, the first respondent/workman is entitled to withdraw the entire amount including the interest accrued thereunder. The said amount will be considered as full compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 12. Further, this Court by an order dated 30.10.2000 directed payment of last drawn wages of Rs.350/- per month by the petitioner. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 21.12.2000, time was extended and it was stated that the Workman/first respondent should be paid Rs.350/- on or before 10th of every succeeding month from November 2000 and the arrears for the month of November 2000 also should be paid on or before 31.12.2000. Though it was recorded on 01.09.2003 that conditions imposed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court had been complied with, a doubt was raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is now made clear that the order passed by this Court dated 21.12.2000 should be complied with by the petitioner, if not already complied with. If the amounts were not paid so far, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire amount for the period from November 2000 till 10.02.2010 in lump sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 12. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore 1 cc To Mr.K.Vasudevan, Advocate, SR.10774 1 cc To Mr.V.Ragavachari, Advocate, SR.11233 W.P.No.18261 of 2000 JP(CO) sra 02/03/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/