Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition is directed against the award dated 20.01.2012 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat in terms of which the termination of the workman/respondent No. 1 has been found to be bad in law and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages. Mr. Sunil Nehra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Forest Department is not an industry as defined under Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and in which department, the workman had been engaged and on this score alone, the impugned award cannot sustain as the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. It is further contended that the workman had not been appointed on the post in accordance with the rules but was merely engaged as a Labourer on daily wage basis and as such, disengagement from service cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has further been argued that the workman did not lead any cogent evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate having worked for 240 days' in the preceding 12 months prior to disengagement and as such, the Labour Court has erred in extending the benefit and protection under Section 25 -F of the Act while directing reinstatement.
(2.) PER contra, Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate appearing for the respondent/workman would submit that a finding having been recorded as regards non -compliance of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act, reinstatement in service would be the obvious consequence. Counsel would argue that the findings of the Labour Court and the discretion exercised while granting the relief of reinstatement and confining the back wages to 50% would not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the case paper book has been perused.
(3.) THE demand notice dated 15.03.2004 has been placed on record at Annexure P -1 and the same would show that the workman had set up a plea of having been engaged as unskilled labourer in the year 1984 at a monthly salary of Rs. 2190/ -. His services had been terminated on 03.04.1994 and a settlement had been arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act dated 11.03.1998 before the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Sonepat and accordingly, he was reinstated in service. Workman claimed to have worked up to 27.04.2000, when his services were terminated verbally without assigning any reasons w.e.f. 28.04.2000 and without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. The reply to the demand notice dated 28.10.2005 on behalf of the management has also been placed on record at Annexure P -2 and the same would reveal that it had been pleaded that Forest Department does not fall under the definition of the industry and as such, the workman is not entitled to get any benefit under the provisions of the Act.;