^^—-— -^ IN THB H.IGH COURT .OF.MADHYA P'RADESH AT JABALPUR. V . . ' ! ••••• ^ Vs.\^: ,^\'\ { ^ .?^^0 /1994 PgTITIOHERSs RESPQNDENTS;' I'l PSTITIOM N0, Divxsional Forest Gfficer Social Forestry, Bilaspur & a.nother Y/S Sbanker Sing.h& another PETITION UNBBR ARTICLES 226 & 22? OF THE GON.S1T1VTION OF INDIA? . . . . . ' 1 • •£a£tl2Hl^£^M^fe^-2£Mii°."e^si (1)- Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Bilaspur '(M.P.). (2)- Forest Exteasion Qfficer, Social Forestry, PpstOffice, '" • ^ Pathariya Dlstrict .B.ilaspur, ^MA3.atl§££-S£-t^^r^gE£M^Ml.... (1)- Shanker Singh S/o Tikaram Singh aged afcout 42 years by occupation Labour R/o Village • Hathkera Post BawaliDistrict Bilaspur. (2)- Presiding O^ficer, La bour Court, Bila spur.. TTIT7 iii HIGH COURT OP CSIHAmSGARH AT BBLA8PUR Wrtt Petttioa Wo. 3990 of 1994 Divisional Forcst Ofllcer, Social Forestiy, Bilaspur aiid aiiofhcr -Vs- Shankar Siagh and aiiofher Appearance SIui P.S. Koshy, Deputy Advocate Genecal for the State/ petitioiicrs, Shri S,P. Kale, counsel for respondent ao. 1, SunII ICiunar MnAa. J ORDBR (04.8.200S) . '•4. (1) This writ {^tition has been filed chaUengmg the impi^aed awaid dated 24.8,1994 passed by fhe Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.52/IDA/91(Re£). (2) Admittedfy, a reference was made to fhe Laboiir Court in the followixig terais. f[WheOwr ihe removcd fiwn ^^snrioe of Shri ShankctrSinghKshcxfyiisvQSdcvtdjus^wd? If not^ to what reliefhe is entltled to and what direc^ions shoutd be issued fo ihe employer in this regaivt? " (3) The case of respondent no»1 is that t&e was appoiated 011 daily wages on fhe post of Chowkidar in. Foiest Plantatimi at viUage Hafhkexa ia Bilaspur Distnct He worked fhere fix>m September 1985 to December 1990, He was removed &om service fiwai awnaw in fhe moiifh of January 1991, The contentfon of rcspondent no. 1 is fhat he had wotked for morc thaa 240 days, therefiMie, his service wouM not have beea -2- teraiiEiated wifhout necessaxy compliaxice of fhe prcwisiMis of sectibn 25F of The Industnal Disputes Act 1947 (hereiaafter referred to as "fhe Acf^). Respondent no. 1 had pxayed for his rcinstatement wifh aU back-wages before fhe Labour Ctourt (4) The contentfon offhe petitionera beforc the Labour Court was fhat respondent no. 1 had worked as Chowkidar fix>m September 1985 to December 1988 on muster loSL It was contended by tiiem fhat fhe respondent no. 1 was appoiated on daily wages to look afiter fhe plaotatfon ia fhe villa^e aaad when fhe work of plantatibn was over^ he was to be iiemoved, fherefore, fherc is no iUegaUty iti rcxaovaL In fact^ respondent no.l was appointed for a particiilar purpose. It wos also contended tfaat the actk>n of fhe Stete does iiot amouiit to rctrenchment of the workman wifhin the meaniag of section 25F offhe I.D. Act, fherefore, fhere was no necessity ofservic^ aay notice upon respondent no,l aaid fherc waa also 110 necessity of conductmg any enquiiy before his removal fix>m sendce. They had jiistified the removal aiid piayed for dismissal offhe claun. (S) In lighit of fhe rival clamis before it, tfae LAour Court recorded evideuce of bofh fh.e parties, Respondent no.l examiiied hioiself before fhe Labour Court In his 02'al evidence, he deposed fhat he was appointed in fhe year 1985 aad he contmuousfy worked till fhe year 1990 on daily wage basis. He had filed a certifteate vMe Annexurc P-1 which was issued by Vcuz Vistar Adhxkari (Forest Extension OflScer) which shows fhat he worked contiDiuously for the said period on fhe said post In the cross examiaatton also he has clearly stated fhat he had worked fnom 1985 to 1990 contmuously and fherc was no break in his sendce, One Shd H. N, Pandey was examiaed on behalf of fhje petitioners before fhe Tribiuial who had stated that the respondent no. 1 waa appomted as a Chowkidjar in. fhe afbrcsaid Dkuitatfoii and his was on muster roU bas^, He produced one docwnGut (Ex.D-1) s- which was a sunuuiaiy ofthe inuster roU &D. which also the work of rcspomlent DO.I waa shown. In P&ra 5 of fhe cioss exainiiiafloii, he had adinitted tliat as per Bx.D^l, fhe res^fiident had worked continuousty for fhe period icteiitioiaed fhereia eKcept the leave perk>d, (6) The tribunal after apprcciatir^ the evidence of both the parties caoie to conclusion fhat respAhdeht * had coiitmuousfy worked on fhe post of Chowkidar smce 1985 tiU fhe date ofhis removaL (7| The tribunal also took this view that fhe piovfaioiis of Section 25F of fhe I,D. Act have not beea complied wifh afld the removal of respondent no.l was fflegaL The tribuaaal granted fhe reUef of reiastatement alongwith fall back-w^ages to rcsponderit no.l, It is against fhis oxder fhe present writ petitton has been fUed, /• <.) 1: :• (8) Learaed coiinsel for the petitionera subxaits that tfae service ofrespoxident no. 1 was discontmued due to completioa of the plantatton work aad smce engs^ement of respoiadent no. 1 wos purefy on daily wages, fherefore, no right has accrued ia favoiir ofrespoiident no. 1 to contmue ia sendce, (9) I have heard tearaed couiisel for the parties at length aad have also perused the recoxds offhe wdt petition, •t (10| First of aU, it is to be deteroiiaed as to wfaefher fhe removal of fhe respondexit HO, 1 amoiuxts to retrenchment or not wifhin fhe meaning of section 25-F of fhe Act If we exainme the case ofrespondent no.l and claim raised by him before fhe tribunal, it would appear fhat respondent no. 1 was contiauously workiag fix>m the year 1985 to fhe year 1990 axid thereafter he was removed fix>m his sendce, Section 25P of the I.D. Act provides fhat no workniaa. employed m aay mdustiy who has been ia contmuous service for not less fhaii one year 4 under an einployer shaU be retrenched by fhe exaployer unless the workman has been givea one inonfh^s notk^s w. wntuig iiidicatmg the reasons for retrenchment and the peraxl of notice has expired, or the worfctQaii has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for fhe period of the notice. It hs^ been hehl in the matter of Jldttan Siwih -V^ Unimi ofJtodta<UMl anotfter fl997f 11 SCC 396 that even a daify rated workman who had contuiuousty served for fhe requisite stataitory mminiiim period in a year, his servfces shatt not be terminated wifhout complyii^ with the provisions ofsection 25P offlie Act (11) In fhe prcsent case also, respondent no. 1 was working oa the daity wages aad aflter continuously working fbr such a long perkxl, his seryices were termiaated, fherefore, it can be said that the aforesaid termmation of services of respondent no.l amoiints to retopenchment wifhia fhe meamng of sect&on 25F of fhe I.D. Act •^ (12) Comiag to fhe next poiat raised by learoed counsel for fhe petitioners that siace the worik for whfch fhe employmeiit offered was over, fherefore, fhe termiaation of seruice of respondent no< 1 can be justified. In fhe opiaion of fhis court, fhe provisions ofthe Industrial Disptaes Act does not classify fhe workmen on fhe basis of nature of fheir employment which relates to a particular work wifh reference to fhe perfod thereof, Once a person is classified within fhe defmifbn ofworkman as stated m sectfon 2(s) of ibe Act, fhen the <(purposc of employment for a pardcular work^ for attracting section 25F of the Act would be immaterial, What is to be seen is as to whether fhe conditions precedent to rctrenchmeixt ofworkmen have been followed or not If fhe Courts or Tribiiaal coTae to fhe conclusion fhat fhe conditions precedent to retrenchxiient have not been foUowed^ fhen, the consequences are to be foUowed. Here fhe Tribunal has passed a rea^oned awaid after giviag positive findiiig ia relatk>n to the non-compliaace of conditfons of section 25F of fhe Act This groxuid raised by •^r ^ ^ - 5- •'^ leanied counsel for the State fbr €U3saiIing tfae said fibadiQg recorded by the Tttbiuial does not seem to be reason^le. This arguiaent caiuiot be accepted in view of the prpvisions of sectfon 25F offhe Act and fhe same is rejected. (13) I do not fiiid aay merit in the writ petition and fhe petition is dism3ussed. The awaid of reinstatem^xit adongwith Jback-wages passed by fhe tribunal isJiereby coxifirmed, It is ic. ^ofi^^e-t ^y- v^exs^e^/ ^oJ^ stated,fhat respondent ho.l/after passiog of fhe award, had j'oinedon 15.11,1994, Therefore, respondmit no.l woirid be entifled for fhe back-wages fix>d fhe date ofreiiioval to tfae date ofremstatement Le., up to 15.11.1994 onfy. No order os to coste. —— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge