GURPARTAP SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar has answered Reference No. 46 of 2008 against the petitioning worker holding that the Forest Department is not an Industry nor was the claimant a workman holding the post of Beldar on regular basis. The court has relied on State of Punjab through Assistant Director, Horticulture, Faridkot v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another, 1994 2 RRR 192 to hold that the Horticulture Department is part and parcel of the Agriculture Department of the State Government and will not fall within the ambit of "Industry" defined in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The question whether the petitioner is a workman has been answered in the negative. The court a quo has held that the workman never joined service of the management nor had he received salary against a permanent post from the management. This finding was recorded by reasoning that the claimant had not produced any appointment letter on the file to substantiate his claim. Neither was the post allegedly occupied by him ever advertised to the public. In cross examination, the claimant himself admitted that he has no proof of appointment and therefore deserved no better. The onus was on the claimant to prove his employment, appointment and joining and consequential payment of salary as a Beldar from the management, the post he claimed he worked on. In absence of positive evidence, the reference has been declined and the labour court has found it not possible to hold that the services of the claimant were terminated as alleged on January 07, 2007. It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Beldar on January 05, 1997 and was paid Rs. 2525/- per month against a permanent post while performing duties at the Tarn Taran Nursery run by the State till and his services were dispensed with. His salary from January 01, 2007 to January 06, 2007 remains due and pending. The claimant pleaded that his services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry and that too without paying any compensation to him, which meant was in breach of protections afforded by Section 25-F of the Act.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the State, the denial was to the effect that the worker had not served as Beldar against a permanent post from January 05, 1997 onwards. However, they admitted categorically that he served at the Nursery at Tarn Taran. In para. 2 of the written statement it was admitted that the applicant 'as per record' has worked in Nursery, Tarn Taran in the Forest Department up to January, 2007 and he has been paid wages on monthly basis and no wages remain unpaid. In para. 3 the department admitted that the claimant was removed from service on January 07, 2007 by averring; "contention of worker that he had been removed from service on 7.01.07 is totally correct, it is important to mention here that because of shortage of work, he was removed from service." In the face of the pleadings in the written statement, it cannot be said that the petitioner never worked from 1997 to 2007, which makes a decade of service of whatever kind it may have been. If he worked 'as per record' no record was produced to rebut the assertion of the petitioner.

(3.) In para 3 of the impugned award dated January 19, 2012 the labour court has recorded for reasons best known to it, as follows:-