KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Bharatpur is challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the award of the Labour Court, Bharatpur dt. 10. 7. 2000 passed in L. C. R. Case No. 150/92 (Raghuvar vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur) and prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the same. The facts of the case are that respondent-workman No. 1 has raised an industrial dispute re termination of his services by the petitioner vide its order dt. 24. 6. 1982. This industrial dispute raised by the workman has been referred by the State Govt. for adjudication to the Labour Court Bharatpur, under impuged award dt. 10. 7. 2000 the Labour Court Bharatpur declared the action of the petitioner to terminate the services of the workman unreasonable and illegal and directions were given for his reinstatement in service with 25% of backwages. The case of respondent workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed as Cattle Guard in the Shelter Belt Plantation Range, Bharatpur. Initially he was engaged in the plantation work of both the sides of canal passing through Simco Labour Colony and for watering the plants. Thereafter, he was posted to Babula Chowki for the work of plantation and Cattle Guard work. On 24. 6. 1982 the petitioner has terminated his services without any cogent reason. It is stated that during this period he (workman) has worked for 395 days and before terminating his services, the petitioner have not complied with the provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was contested by the petitioner. A detailed reply to the statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has come up with the case that the case of respondent workman based on uncorrect facts. It is submitted that the workman had never worked on CFCD side and Babula Chowki nor his name is there in the muster roll. When in the muster roll the name of the workman is not there, no question does arise to work at these two sides.
(3.) THE second point raised is that the respondent No. 1 has raised this industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer after eight years of termination of his services to which he has not furnished any explanation. The petitioner next grievanced that he published a notice in the news papers on 21. 1. 1992 inviting claim from the workman but he has not submitted any claim. The petitioner contended that when the workman has not been appointed and worked in the office of the petitioner, no question does arise for termination of his services. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioner has filed this petition. Mr. M. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balbir Singh vs. Punjab Roadways and Anr. (1), submitted that the Labour Court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in not considering this important aspect of the matter that the workman has raised the industrial dispute after eight years of termination of his services and passed the award reinstating the workman with full back wages. ;