DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MADIKERI DIVISION, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 01 Vs. M.P. RAVINDRA S/O M. PUTTANNA, MELCHEMBU VILLAGE, BALAMBI POST, MADIERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Department: of Forest. State of Karnataka, and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Madikeri Division, aggrieved by the award dt. 5/8/2010 in IID No 58/07 of the Labour Court, Mysore, directing reinstatement of the respondent to the post of Forest Watcher, not to be considered as regularisation. however with 50% backwages from 1/6/2002 on the basis of last drawn pay, while denying consequential benefits and continuity of service, have presented this petition.

(2.) THERE can be no dispute that the respondent, a daily wager working as watcher in the range forest, raised an industrial dispute by invoking Sec. 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', to declare the termination of his service as illegal. The petitioners, arraigned as II party, entered appearance, resisted the claim by tiling counter statement, interalia contending that the respondent was not appointed in the regular process of recruitment under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, relating to recruitment, and had not completed 240 days of continuous service in one year preceding the alleged termination. According to the petitioner, respondent was engaged intermittently on daily wages from June 1993 to November 1993; January 1994 to October 1994; and one month in December, 1996. intermittently and that it was the respondent who had abstained from work. In addition, that the petitioner was not an industry in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, in State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, JT (2001) 3 SC 326 . Parties entered trial when the respondent was examined as WW -1 and marked 16 documents, for the petitioner one N.T.Vijay Kumar, Asst. Conservator of Forest, was examined as MW -1 and 43 documents marked. The oral testimony of WW -1 was that he had worked as forest watcher on daily wages from 1 /6/1993 to i/6/2002 continuously without any break. While the evidence of MW -1. Vijay Kumar, was to the effect that the muster roll maintained in the office disclosed that the respondent worked from June to November 1993: January to October 1994; and a month in December 1996, In addition MW -1 admitted that forest watcher's duty was to protect the forest and it is not a seasonal work and further that from 1/6/1993 to 1/6/2002 the workman had worked under NMR (Nominal Muster Roll). Therefore, the Labour Court answered the issue that respondent had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year prior to his termination and as there was non -compliance with Sec. 25 -F of the ID Act held as illegal, the termination. On issue No.5 as to, whether the petitioner was an industry, the Labour Court observed that in a similar such petition a finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner was an industry falling within the definition of the said term under Sec. 2 (j) of the ID Act and therefore there was no reason to take a different view, by the award impugned.

(3.) A daily wager can at best go back as a daily wager alone and not against a substantive post of a forest watcher, In that view of the matter, it is needless to state that the petitioner - Forest department, is directed to continue to engage the respondent as a daily wager, pay him his wages until terminated, strictly in accordance with law.