MAGHAR DASS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PATIALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, by his award dated 11.11.2011 had declined the relief of reinstatement and instead granted compensation of Rs. 40,000.00 in lieu of reinstatement. The amount has been ordered to be paid within four months from the date of award failing which it will earn interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

(2.) The position on the admitted facts is that the petitioner Maghar Dass served on daily wage basis as a Beldar with the Forest Department for 7 odd years from 1993 to Oct. 1, 2000 when his services were terminated without complying with the law in Sec. 25-F the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the ID Act'). The Labour Court has applied the law in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others, 2006 (4) SCC Page I , to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that proper procedure has not followed while offering him employment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Forest Department did not take the plea before the labour court that the appointment of the Maghar Dass was de hors the rules and in violation of the scheme of appointments to public service in Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. If the plea was not taken before the Labour Court in the pleadings then it is not open to be taken up for the first time in writ jurisdiction as ruled in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 . The decision in Umadevi-3 has been explained by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 , that the principle laid down in Umadevi-3 does not apply to resolution of disputes before the Labour Courts and Tribunals. Moreover, engagement on daily wages is not against public posts and such engagements stand on no rule territory which method of appointments is permitted to the State to make them to meet exigencies of work as has been recognised in para 2 in Umadevi-3 case itself, the Supreme Court observing at the outset that "A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. "