DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. CHAMARIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Divisional Forest Officer, impugns the legality and validity of the award dated 30.08.1996 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No.17/IDA/82(Ref), whereby it was held that the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IDA') was not complied with and as such, the order of retrenchment passed by the petitioner was illegal, and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with full back wages.

(2.) THE facts, as projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that the original respondent No.1 namely Sukaluram was engaged as Chowkidar in the year 1996 as casual labour with the petitioner as per the requirement of work. Sukaluram was muster-roll employee, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. His service was engaged in the forest depot. Sukaluram was never appointed as a regular employee so asto attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Sukaluram was never in continuous service.

(3.) ON perusal of the award, it is evident that firstly, no issues were framed and secondly, without recording the finding that Sukaluram had worked for 240 days in the preceding year, on the basis of statement of respondent-Sukalurma that he had worked for 15 years, it was held that there was non-compliance of section 25F of the IDA. Thus, reinstatement in service with full back-wages was directed, holding the retrenchment to be illegal. The learned Labour Court has ignored completely the facts and law on the point that respondent-Sukaluram has not even pleaded that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The averments of respondent-Sukaluram in statement of claims reads that he had worked for 15 years and as such, he has completed 240 days of service as required under section 25B of the IDA. Therefore he may be reinstated in service.