Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur

N.K. Sodhi, J.—These two writ petitions are directed against the award of the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated April 26, 1993 whereby the workman has been directed to be reinstated but without back wages, CWP 12861 of 1993 has been filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab challenging that award directing reinstatement of the workman while the other (CWP 15892 of 1993) has been filed by the workman claiming back wages.

Paramjit Kaur (for short, the workman) was appointed as a clerk on March 2, 1982 on ad hoc basis for six months or till a regularly selected candidate was made available to the Department by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab. She was allowed to continue in service till November 29, 1983 when her services were terminated on the appointment of a regularly selected candidate. The workman challenged her termination by raising an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court- respondent. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman had put in more than 240 days of service and that her services were terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently, she was directed to be reinstated. As she had admitted in her statement that she did not work w.e.f. November 29, 1983, the Labour Court did not award any back wages to her.

I have heard counsel for the workman and having perused both the writ petitions and the impugned award, I am of the opinion that both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on the evidence produced by the workman and the Department led no evidence in rebuttal. There is no reason for this Court to take a view different from the one taken by the Labour Court.

The only plea taken by the employer in challenging the impugned award is that the Forest Department in which the workman was employed is not an industry within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. I am afraid 1 am not permitting the Department to raise this plea as it was not taken before the Labour Court. No evidence was led to show as to what are the nature of activities performed by Forest Department. These are mixed questions of law and fact which cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even in the writ petition, it has not been shown as to how the activities of the Forest Department are purely governmental in nature which cannot be undertaken by any private enterprise/organisation.

As regards the claim of the workman for backwages, she too is not entitled to the same. Her services were terminated in the year 1983 and admittedly she served a demand notice in, the year 1986 and it is her own statement that she has not worked with the Department ever since then. The question of back wages is always a matter of discretion with the Labour Court which has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. A workman who kept quiet for almost three years after the termination of her services should not normally be entitled to any back wages.

In the result, there is no merit in these petitions and they stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs.