MADAN, J. - (1.) THE State has come up by way of this writ petition challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Kota dated 21. 11. 1996 (Ann. 3) on the ground inter alia that as per the claim statement filed by respondent No. 1 workman, he was employed with the petitioner-Forest Department, Kota with effect from 1. 4. 1985 and was deputed to work under respondent No. 2. He has worked in Nursery Jalwara and Plantation Bajranggarh as Cattle Guard under petitioner No. 2 Regional Forest Officer Kishanganj (Kota ). He was removed from the services of petitioner No. 2 at the behest of petitioner No. 1.
(2.) IN his claim statement, the workman had averred that he had worked continuously from 1. 4. 1985 to 31. 3. 1989 and had completed more than 240 days of service. In reply to the claim statement, it was admitted that the respondent-workman worked at Jalwara and Bajranggarh on the post of Cattle Guard but he left the services of the department voluntarily with effect from 1. 3. 87 and never reported back to duty thereafter. It was further contended that the claimant (respondent) had not completed 240 days of service in any calendar year, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. The petitioner State has filed an affidavit of one Ram Lal Chouhan and he was also cross examined on it. On due appreciation of evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the removal of the claimant-respondent from services of the department with effect from 1. 4. 89 was illegal and improper and he was entitled to reinstatement and so also backwages with benefit of continuity in service. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned Award has been challenged by the Forest Department on the ground that the Award of the Labour Court is against the facts on the record and law applicable; the Labour Court has also erred in concluding that the claimant had not completed 240 days of service and therefore, the finding of the Labour Court are perverse, illegal and contrary to the law of the land.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned Award of the Labour Court as also the material available on the record as well as the law on this aspect. Prima facie. I am of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are not open to challenge and since they have been recorded on due appreciation of evidence adduced before it. Since the Labour Court has recorded a positive finding that the workman had completed 240 days of service from the period 1. 4. 85 to 1. 4. 89 and also in regard to the fact that his removal from service has been admitted in cross-examination by the departmental witnesses namely, Gajanand and Bharmal Suman, it is in the back-drop and the above background that the following question under Sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Act has been referred by the State Govt. to the Labour Court vide its Notification dated 16. 11. 93:- D;k JfeD Dugsa;k yky iq= /kuuk yky 'kekz Dks fu;kstD e. My ou vf/kDkjh ckjka }kjk fnukaD 1-4-89 ls lsok ls i`fkD Djuk mfpr ,oa os/k gsa ;fn ugha rks JfeD fDl jkgr Dks izkir Djus Dk vf/kDkjh gs\** During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Pratamsingh Narsingh Parmar (1), decided on 31. 1. 2001, wherein the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether the Forest Department of the State Government is an ``industry'' or not? and if it is an ``industry'' whether the termination of an employee by the department for not complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act is not open to challenge? ;