RANGE FOREST OFFICER SAAMAJIKA ARANYA VALAYA AND THE PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECOLOGY Vs. KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P. 18668/13 is filed by the State calling in question the award dt. 20/9/2012 in IID No. 6/03 of the Labour Court at Mysore, Annex. A, directing reinstatement of the respondent -workman to the post last held by him along with 50% backwages from 1/12/2000 until reinstatement, while not entitling the workman to regularization and reserving liberty to the State to retrench the workman for bona fide reasons after complying with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the 'Act'. The workman has also challenged the very same award by filing W.P. 26624/13, insofar as it relates to denial of 50% backwages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, there is no more dispute that the respondent -workman was engaged on daily wage basis and paid wages on the days when he was provided with work. It is also a matter of fact that the respondent -workman was not appointed in a regular recruitment against a substantive post in the forest department. Yet another fact not in dispute is that there is no material placed by the State to establish that the respondent had not worked continuously for 240 days, since MW -1 states that the respondent did not discharge duties continuously for 240 days. In other words, State had, within its custody, material to show that respondent -workman had not worked continuously for 240 days. Strangely those records are not made available to the Labour Court.

(2.) IT is no doubt true that the decision of the Supreme Court in JT (2001) 3 SC 326 observing that forest department is not an industry, nevertheless the decision in ., AIR 1996 SC 2898 it is observed that a scheme of the forest department to create a park to fulfill the recreational and educational aspirations of the people, is not the sovereign function of the State, and therefore was an industry, the Labour Court accordingly held the forest department of the State of Karnataka as an industry under Sec. 2(j) of the Act. Regard being had to the evidence of MW -1 that the respondent -workman was engaged on daily wages during an extended period from 1998 to 2002, concluded that the respondent had served continuously for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the termination on 1/12/2002, hence the termination was in violation of Sec. 25(F) of the Act and therefore the workman was entitled to reinstatement, though with 50% backwages.

(3.) BE that as it may, it is not disputed that the respondent -workman was engaged on daily wages and served the forest department for approximately 4 1/2 years, though intermittently. In that view of the matter, ends of justice would be met by directing payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits, as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In almost similar, though not identical, circumstances in W.P. 45180/12 called with W.P. 35893/12 DD. 10/9/2013, this court confirmed the award of the Labour Court directing compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits of a similarly circumstanced daily wage employee of the forest department. In the result, petitions are accordingly disposed of The award of the Labour Court is modified entitling the respondent -workman to Rs. 1,25,000/ - as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Compliance within three months, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a.