Divisional Forest Officer vs Jagat Singh and Another

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed by the Labour Court on 15.10.2007 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''the workman'') has been ordered to be reinstated on account of violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act")

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the award of the Labour Court, directing the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages is not sustainable as such Award runs counter to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, and Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, .

The reinstatement of the workman appointed on daily wages de hors the rules of recruitment and without inviting applications from eligible candidates has been found to be not permissible. In Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar 2006 (3) S.C.C. 81; Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 S.C.C. 749; Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemens Ltd., ; and Manager (Now Regional Director) R.B.I. Vs. Gopinath Sharma and Another, , it has been held that workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated on account of violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In view of the said fact, the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman granting continuity of service and back wages is not sustainable.

The learned Labour Court has further held that retention of juniors, namely, Balraj and Khadak Singh violates Section 25-G of the Act. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority''s case (supra) has held that even if there is violation of Section 25-G of the Act that will not entitle the workman to be reinstated. It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) of the Act is applicable to the provisions contained in chapter VA containing Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. The termination of daily wager is not retrenchment failing within Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Therefore, the workman, who is a daily wager, cannot be reinstated as it does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the workman is entitled to be reinstated is not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned award dated 15.10.2007, Annexure P-4, is set aside.

Since the workman has worked for a period of almost 12 years, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent-workman within a period of four months.

With the said direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.