RANGE FOREST OFFICER Vs. NORUBHA JILUBHA PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was appointed by the Range Forest Officer Muli as a Rojamdar labourer on a project undertaken under the Social Forestry Scheme which was introduced by the State Government with the financial assistance of the World Bank since 1980. It is his case that he was appointed in 1981 and his services were terminated on 13-6-85 without considering his seniority and without paying him his legal dues. He therefore raised an industrial dispute in this behalf and the same was referred by the Government to the Labour Court at Surendranagar.

(2.) In his evidence before the Labour Court he stated that his services were terminated on 13 even though new persons were retained in service. He has further stated that in response to the letters written by the Range Forester he had gone to his office four or five time and had written registered letters for giving him work. On behalf of the Forest Department one Harishanker Patel was examined. Only thing that is worth noting in his evidence is that he has denied that any new person was appointed after 13-6-85. As regards the position of the workman he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the same. He did not clarify the position of the present workman by referring to the records pertaining to him. Considering this evidence the Labour Court believed the version of the workman and held that he had not left the work on his own but his services were terminated on 13-6-85. and that he had made attempts to report for work after he had received letters written by the Department. The Labour Court was of the view that as the respondents services were terminated without following any procedure the same was illegal. It therefore passed an order for reinstatement of the workman to his original post with continuity of service. Even though the workmans services were terminated on 13-6-85 considering the fact that the workman had submitted his claim only on 18 the Labour Court awarded backwages form 18 It may be stated that pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court the workman was reinstated in service on 7-10-92.

(3.) What is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the workman was only a Rojamdar i.e. a person employed on daily basis and therefore if he was not given work because the work was not available it cannot be said that his services have been terminated. He also submitted that in case of Rojamdars the question of retrenchment will not arise. Even if he is not given work that cannot be treated as retrenchment in view of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this case no evidence whatsoever was led by the Government to explain on which conditions the workman was appointed. Only thing that is admitted in this case and regarding which there is no dispute is that he was a Rojamdar. We do not therefore think it proper in this case to decide whether the workman was employed on a day-to-day contract basis The Government has been appointing persons as Rojamdars and in respect of such persons It is maintaining Nominal Muster Rolls. In this case It is an admitted position that Nominal Muster Rolls are kept unit-wise (site-wise) and a common seniority list in respect of all the workers wording within that range is maintained. As no evidence was led by the department with respect to the terms and conditions on which the workman was employed and as there is no material before us to show whether the workman had completed 240 days in a given year or not we do not want to go into the legal contention raised on behalf of the department. Since no such evidence was produced the Labour Court was right in treating the termination as illegal and ordering reinstatement of the workman.