Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the Forest Saw Mill Range, Jagadhri which is a wing of the Divisional Forest Office, Plantations, Yamuna Nagar. The respondent No.1 worked as Mistri in the Saw Mill. He was engaged through a contractor. He worked on contract basis. He had worked for 17 days between the period from October 30, 2006 to November 20, 2006 when he suffered an injured in an accident in the Saw Mill and lost most of his right thumb while cutting wood on November 20, 2006. He was hospitalized for a few days and then remained on leave. He was treated in PGI Chandigarh. He lodged a claim for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act in the Court of the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, Circle-II, Jagadhri which was dismissed. This is not subject matter of the present dispute.
(2.) He resumed duty on May 12, 2007 when he was well enough but his services were dispensed with on June 23, 2007. He served a demand notice on June 26, 2007 complaining that the termination was illegal being without notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. He prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Reference No.46 of 2008 was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.
(3.) The Court framed seven issues. The defence taken was that after 1999 contract system had been introduced in the Forest Department and workers in the Saw Mill were engaged through a medium of contractors. The workman moved an application before the Labour Court for impleading the contractors as parties which was allowed. Contractors Jagpal and Umesh Rawat filed a joint written statement stating that they were unlicensed and unregistered contractors and the workman had served with Jagpal from October 30, 2006 to November 20, 2006 and had never worked through Umesh Rawat. They had deposited the amount admissible and due to the workman in his account with the Employees State Insurance Corporation from where he received pension which figure was given out in a short affidavit filed by the Forest Department certifying that he was in receipt of pension of 700/- per month for injury sustained during and arising out of employment. Contractor Jagpal tendered his affidavit in evidence but died before he could be cross-examined. The Court correctly held that the statement in chief cannot be read in evidence and there is also no evidence and proof that the worker was engaged by Jagpal as given out in the joint written statement filed by the contractors. Umesh Rawat appearing as MW- 2 deposed that he was registered with ESI Corporation by the Department from which an inference is drawn by the Court a quo that the contractor was himself an employee and not a contractor. The Court a quo has not believed that contracts can be entered orally by the Forest Department and there must be some written order or a contract entered and signed by the parties. Sukhpal Kaur MW-1 appearing for the management did not bring any record to the Court to support the case of the management. Ex.MW-2/A was produced on record which is a declaration form from the ESI Corporation with the name and address of the employer of the claimant mentioned as Range Forest Officer, Saw Mill, Jagadhri. It is authenticated by the stamp of the office. The plea of the Government Pleader that the declaration form was not signed by any Officer of the Department was found by the Court to be of no consequence and the stamp of the office was enough. The Court noticed from the original that on the declaration form there are signatures of RFO though the seal is faint but the words RFO can be read. The Court inferred a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. On these premises, the Court held the workman entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and has awarded 50% back wages. The award was passed on October 03, 2011.;