SURESH RAMRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the workmen, who got order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the Labour Court in their complaint U.L.P., which judgments and orders came to be reversed in the revision petitions, by the Industrial Court. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4169 of 1996 had filed Complaint U.L.P. No. 90 of 1991 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 1998 had filed Complaint U.L.P. No. 93 of 1991, which came to be decided by the learned Judge, Labour Court at Dhule on 09.09.1992. Said judgments and decrees came to be reversed by the Industrial Court, Nasik, by a common judgment in Revision Application U.L.P. No. 290 of 1992 and 28 to 62 of 1993, decided on 30.12.1993.

(2.) It is no more disputed that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were serving as Forest Protection Labour with the respondents from 1987 and 1989 onwards respectively. They continued to serve with the respondents until identical notices were issued on 31.01.1991, informing that their services would be terminated w.e.f. 02.03.1991. In the notice it was mentioned that five years period was lapsed for plantation of trees and the trees no more require services of 109 persons. It is case of the petitioners that termination order is illegal and false. In all 228 persons were employed and termination order was given to 109 persons and it is colourable exercise of misuse of powers. No seniority list was published. The principle of "last come, first go" was not followed. The amount determined under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not paid and therefore the termination is illegal.

(3.) On the other hand the respondents appeared and filed written statement at Exh. C3 and stated that the scheme was started in 1981. The plantation became more than five years old. It required no more protection. After lapse of five years, subsidy for protection was not available to them. The services of the complainants were temporary. They followed due procedure while terminating services of the complainants. The scheme depends upon availability of subsidy. After five years the trees were entrusted to Local Forest Officer for supervision purpose. After sanctioning the subsidy, new schemes are undertaken by them. The plantation having period of more than five years, measuring 4424 hecatre 7 R, it was decided to be transferred to Regional Forest Department. Remaining area requires services of only 119 Watchmen. For another 109 Watchmen, subsidy was not available. They had prepared seniority list of all 228 watchmen which was also published at Office of Forest Department. Nobody had taken objection to said list. The principle of "last come, first go" was followed. Compensation was paid under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, the complaints be dismissed.