Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) CASE called twice. No one is present on behalf of petitioner even in second round. On earlier dates also none appeared on behalf of petitioner. The matter was therefore considered on the basis of arguments contained in the memo of writ petition and submissions made by Dr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of workman -respondent.
(2.) PETITIONER , Secretary, State Sainik Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur challenged the award dated 01.08.1996 passed by Labour Court, Jaipur, by which retrenchment of workman - respondent with effect from 01.05.1990 was held to be illegal and holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per annum from the date of retrenchment till the date of the award. Petitioner, in writ petition, pleaded that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that petitioner does not come within definition of 'industry' and that appointment of workman -respondent was made only on temporary and daily wage basis. The workman - respondent failed to produce proof of fact that he was being paid on daily wage basis. The learned Labour Court was not justified in awarding back wages at the rate of Rs. 1000/ per annum. It is pleaded that respondent did not work after 01.05.1990 and therefore he was not entitled to any back wages. Petitioner State Soldier Board has not been held to be an industry as per the judgment dated 28.04.1992 of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3061/1992 Rajan Sharma v. State. Dr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for workman -respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that in view of subsequent law, judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, even the view expressed in one of the earlier judgments that Forest Department is not an industry has been dissented, the principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa : AIR 1978 SC 548, if applied, even the State Soldier Board would come within the definition of industry. Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the Labour Court was fully justified in directing reinstatement of workman -respondent because it was amply proved before the Labour Court that he worked for 240 days immediately preceding the date of retrenchment and that there was no compliance made of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Labour Court however moulded the relief in so far as the back wages are concerned, by directing the petitioner to pay to workman -respondent only a sum of Rs. 1000/ per annum as back wages for the intervening period.
(3.) UPON hearing learned Counsel for respondents and perusing material on record, I find that larger issue whether or not the State Soldier Board is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act need not to be gone into because of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases after the delivery of the impugned award. However, it is clearly proved from evidence before the Labour Court that the workman respondent worked for more than 240 days which fact has not been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition. At the same time, however, I find that the retrenchment in the present case was admittedly made on 01.05.1990, wherefor the reference was made vide notification dated 04.11.1991 and the award was delivered on 01.08.1996 and this Court while issuing notice of the writ petition, was persuaded to stay operation of the impugned award by order dated 01.04.1998. In those facts, requiring the petitioner to reinstate the respondent after 14 years particularly when the workman -respondent only worked for ten months on the post of Gardener on daily wages basis, would not be justified. Keeping in view however the length of such period of service and the fact that only a sum of Rs. 1000/ - per annum was ordered to be paid as back wages and also the fact that if the award is now implemented, the petitioner would be for all this time would have received the entire wages, ends of justice would be met if the direction of reinstatement with back wages at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per annum, is substituted by payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ - to workman -respondent towards full and final settlement of his claim. Ordered accordingly. Said amount shall be paid to the respondent by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the petitioner.;