RAJWANTI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 3830 of 2014

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the department has failed to produce the cash book from the year 2008 to 2010 and, therefore, the adverse inference should be drawn against the said department.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the well-reasoned order passed by the Labour Court. It is a matter of fact that the demand notice dated 12.10.2010 was filed by the petitioner-workwoman stating that she had worked as Beldar-cum-Mali under the supervision of various Forest Guards from January, 1992 to 30.04.2010. The names of the Guards under whom she had worked were also mentioned namely Azad, Jage and Surinder. She had alleged that she had done duty mostly at Penta was Beat and Charkhi Dadri Beat under Dadri range. The termination of her services were violative of the provisions of the Act. Resultantly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court whereby, the said averments were repeated in the claim statement.