Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The respondent was appointed as a Chowkidar by the appellants. Admittedly, no offer of appointment was issued to him nor the recruitment rules applicable for filling up of a permanent or temporary post have been followed. The appellants contend that the respondent was engaged in the production division of Forest Department of District Guna, which has since been wound up. His services were thereafter terminated. Contending, inter alia, that he had worked in different departments of the State from August, 1984 to July 8, 1992, his services were terminated without complying with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a complaint petition was filed by the respondent before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 3, Gwalior. By reason of an award dated 12.7.1999 on a finding that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and having regard to the fact that no retrenchment compensation was paid, he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

3. The Labour Court does not appear to have taken into consideration the pleas raised by the appellant herein that the production division at Guna was wound up by an order dated 3.7.1992 of the State of Madhya Pradesh, even while considering the relief which was required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant although noticed the said fact dismissed the same petition stating :

"Even though on behalf of the employer, statement of one Ashok Kumar was recorded but the aforesaid witness could not dispute the fact with regard to working of the employee. On the contrary, the said witness, in his cross-examination admitted that the certificates have been issued to the respondent/employee by the competent authority of the employer and he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Considering the fact that no show cause notice was issued or retrenchment compensation was paid or enquiry was conducted before terminating the service of respondent/employee, a finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 1 was in employment since 1.8.1984 and he had completed more than 240 days continuous service in a calendar year. That being so, in view of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 service of respondent/employee had been terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F, no show cause notice was issued or retrenchment compensation paid to him. Therefore, the finding recorded is based on appreciation of evidence and material available on record. The said finding is neither perverse nor warrant interference in any manner whatsoever by this Court."

4. Mr. B.S. Banthia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that having regard to the fact that the respondent was appointed on daily wages and the unit in which he was working had been wound up, the Respondent could not have been directed to be reinstated with full back wages.

5. Mrs. K. Sharada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the appellants had not made out any case before the Labour Court that the respondent was appointed under a Scheme. He, according to the learned counsel, might have been shifted from one department to the other but the same would not mean that he was appointed to work in a particular project/scheme. It was pointed out that by reason of the order of reinstatement, the respondent continues to be a daily wager and there is, thus, no reason as to why after he having been reinstated and having worked in one or the other department of the State from 2001, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that a daily wager does not hold a post. The Forest Department is a wing of the State. Its employees hold a status. For acquiring th