PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-362
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 14,2014

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HARYANA AND OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned award dated 18.7.2013 (Annexure P1) whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workwoman by granting reinstatement at her previous post with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 8.7.2002.
(2.) Perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that in the demand notice dated 8.7.2002 (Annexure P2), the plea taken was that the workman had been engaged in the year 1981 as Beldar-cum-Mali and posted as such at Alampur Beat. She had given details of working in different areas of Tosham Block under as many as nine Forest Guards during her long service period of 20 years till 1.5.2001. Accordingly, violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G, 25H & 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") was alleged on account of termination of the service. The claim statement was also based on the same set of allegations, which was opposed mainly on the ground that she had not completed 240 days in a calendar year. An additional ground was taken that many of her juniors, namely Lilu, Gulia and others had been appointed as fresh hands and Rule 76 of the Act had also been violated. In defence, it was claimed that the workwoman had worked only for 28 days in the month of February, 1994, 29 days in March, 1994, 21 days in April, 1994 and 2 days in January 1995 and therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The plea that the department being not industry was also taken up in great zeal and it was alleged that the workwoman had herself not come on duty as per her own wish. The plea was taken that the juniors of the workwoman, namely Lilu and Gulia were not working with the department and therefore, there was no violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
(3.) The workwoman appeared WW.1 and deposed in her favour and also deposed about the termination of her services and her juniors, namely Roshni wife of Om Parkash, Maya wife of Shamb, Kamla wife of Krishan, Munni wife of Jagdish, Lakhpati daughter of Amar Chand, Sumitra daughter of Laxman, Kela daughter of Mahabir son of Badhwa and Bimla wife of Bhagha being retained in service and still working.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.