DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Vs. B.P. MARUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Karnataka, along with the Deputy Conservator of Forests, have jointly presented this petition, aggrieved by the Award dated 22.9.2010 in Reference No. 135/2002 Annexure-A of the Labour Court, Mysore; directing reinstatement of the respondent to the post held by him during October 1999, however without regularization, but with 40% back wages from 19.6.2002, reserving liberty to the petitioner to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act'), in addition to denial of consequential benefits and continuity of service. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the Award impugned, there is no more dispute that the respondent - workman when engaged on daily wage basis, was paid wages when 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 of the State as required by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Yet another fact is that there is no material to establish that the respondent - workman did work continuously for a period of 240 days in twelve months immediately preceding the alleged termination, though MW.1 - Range Forest Officer testified to the fact that the workman did work in the establishment during the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 under 01 Timber Head, in connection with activities relating to felling and selling of timber. In other words, it was the petitioner who was in custody of the records to have placed the same before court to establish that there was no continuous service as required by section 25-B of the Act. Such is not the conduct of the petitioner.

(2.) Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner does not dispute the discharge of duties of the respondent as a daily wage worker, coupled with the testimony of MW.1 - Range Forest Officer, Labour Court, was fully justified in concluding that the workman had rendered 240 days of continuous service within a period of twelve months immediately preceding the alleged order of termination. The Labour Court was also justified hi concluding, in the circumstances, that there was violation of section 25-F of the Act while terminating services of the daily wager - respondent as on 1.10.1999.

(3.) Respondent - workman did not place relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioner - Department which had engaged his services was, in fact, engaged in social forestry, so as to fall within the definition of the term 'industry' under section 2(j) of the Act.