Bhanwar Singh vs Range Forest Officer

Dinesh Mehta, J

Mr. Anil Bidan Halu, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the matter be adjourned for a week.

Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present writ petition impugns the judgment and award dated 22.01.2021, passed by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in relation to a reference made by the State Government way back on 18.05.2005 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”).

Considering that the rights of the petitioner, which were referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the learned Tribunal way back in 2005 came to be negated by the learned Tribunal after 16 years i.e. on 22.01.2021, this Court refuses petitioner’s request for adjournment, as the rights of the petitioner, who is fighting for last 20 years, are requested to be considered at the earliest.

Pursuant to the reference made by the State Government on 18.05.2005, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 22.01.2021, two questions have been decided; first, as to whether the respondents – Forest Department is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act of 1947; and second, whether the petitioner’s retrenchment vide oral order dated 26.08.1986 was legally valid.

So far as the first question is concerned, the learned Tribunal has decided the same in petitioner’s favour in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in which it has been held that the Forest Department is an “Industry” within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act of 1947.

The second question has been decided against the petitioner, as he had failed to produce evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his retrenchment. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has also observed that the dispute has been raised after a delay of 16 years.

Perused the record.

Considering that the petitioner has raised the issue after 16 years of his retrenchment and further because he has failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present writ petition.

The petitioner has neither produced any evidence nor has he placed any material to show that he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his retrenchment.

The finding that petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year is a finding of fact and without any cogent evidence, such finding cannot be interfered with by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition therefore, fails.

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.