DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST Vs. BAGDA PUNJABHAI LAKSHMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 5th June 2000, passed in Reference (LCJ) No.182 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post along with full back wages.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this petition the following order was passed: Rule. Ad interim relief in terms of para 5[c] subject to compliance of provisions of section 17(B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. To be heard with Special Civil Applications Nos.3918/01, 3919/01, 3921/01, 3922/01, 3924/01, 3925/01 & 3926/01.

(3.) This Court vide judgement dated 16th September 2005 disposed of Special Civil Application No.3919 of 2001. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as under: 28. Another aspect of this matter is also required to be noted. In his deposition recorded at Exh. 9 before the labour court, workman has deposed in clear terms that after termination of his service, one Shri Jagabhai was engaged by the establishment; fresh persons have been engaged.; while engaging them, he was not offered job. This evidence of the workman has also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and not denied by the petitioner. No rebuttal evidence was produced by the petitioner before the labour court. Respondent workman was not offered job before employing fresh hands. Therefore, petitioner has also committed breach of section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of that also, respondent workman is entitled for reinstatement because it is independent section and not linked with section 25-B or 25-F of the ID Act, 1947. Legal right of re-employment is independent right irrespective of the fact whether workman had completed 240 days continuous service or not. Moment retrenchment of workman is established, section 25-H of the ID Act would apply as independent section. Moment it is established that new persons were engaged without first offering to those who were retrenched earlier, such retrenchment would be rendered illegal for want of compliance of section 25-H. When new employee is recruited or engaged by the employer in place of respondent, then, there is no justification for the petitioner to terminate the services of the respondent. It is the duty of the petitioner to satisfy the labour court that the retrenchment of respondent is legal and justified but in this case, petitioner has not been able to establish that the retrenchment of the respondent is legal and/or justified. Thus, looking from this angle also, award of reinstatement is doing substantial justice between the parties. Before this Court also, no submissions have been made by Ms. Mita Panchal on this aspect of subsequent engagement of new person/s after retrenchment of the workman. Thus, on two counts, respondent is entitled for reinstatement. One for want of compliance of section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 and also for want of breach of section 25-H of the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, in either way, award of reinstatement of the workman cannot be interfered with by this Court. 29. It is true that this Court has very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution and this Court cannot act as an appellate authority. This Court even cannot re-appreciate evidence as appreciated by Labour Court and award passed by Labour Court based on facts, being a fact finding authority. This Court also cannot disturb such findings of facts which are arrived at by Labour Court on basis of evidence led before it. Even if two views are possible, this Court cannot interfere with th same while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, according to my opinion, there is no substance in this petition. Therefore, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. 30 Ordinarily, this Court may not pass any order against petitioner in petition filed by petitioner. However, looking to peculiar facts of this case, on the basis of record and in absence of respondent, this Court has thought it fit to pass appropriate orders for implementation of award in question. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 11.6.2001 has come to an end on 6.9.2001. Therefore, Range Forest Officer, Extension Range, Kheradi Road, Surendranagar, is directed to reinstate respondent-workman in service within a period of one month from date of receipt of copy of this order. Petitioner - Range Forest Officer, Extension Range, Kheradi Road, Surendranagar, is further directed to pay 20% back wages to respondent-workman from 15.6.92 to 5.8.2000 within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner - Range Forest Officer, Extension Range, Kheradi Road, Surendranagar is further directed to pay full back wages to respondent-workman with effect from date of award, i.e. 5.8.2000 till date of his actual reinstatement, within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. This Court, considering the facts of this case, is compelled to pass such orders which normally this Court does not pass.