JUDGMENT

S M Modak, J. - Labour Court, Bhandara, held termination illegal and directed Forest Department - petitioners - Party No.1 to reinstate the workman - respondent no.1 - Party No.2 and granted him continuity of service. His claim for back wages was not allowed. This decision was taken on Reference [IDA] No. 14 of 2005 on 3rd March,2009.

2. The Forest Department has challenged the correctness of the decision before this Court. When conciliation proceedings have failed, Labour Court started with an inquiry on reference by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour. Though both the parties filed their pleadings, it is only the workman who gave the evidence. The workman claims continuous service from 01st July,2000 till the date of termination of service illegally, for a continuous period of more than 240 days in a year. On the other hand, the Forest Department claims intermittent service for the period from 01st July,2000 to 31st August,2004 and that too for a few days during those years. Furthermore, they plead that the employment was not permanent, but only limited on daily wages for the jobs under the Employment Guarantee Scheme.

3. Forest Department being an industry or not is also disputed. The activities of Forest Department include plantation, sale of forest produce, maintenance of holiday resorts and catering to services to tourists, whereas Forest Department pleads that the workman is connected only to the job of plantation of trees.

ISSUES

4. After evidence, Labour Court finds favour with the workman as mentioned above. So, the issues before me are whether [a] the Party No.2 is a "Workman", [b] Party No.1 is an "Industry", and [c] Party No.1 worked permanently for a continuous period of one year, or whether his services are terminated illegally. There is no prayer for regularization. Hence, there is no occasion for this Court to make a comment on that.

5. I have heard Shri N. R. Patil, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the petitioners and Ms. R. V. Kalia, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.2. Accordingly, I have closed the matter for orders. The matter was re-listed and I have heard the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Shri N. R. Patil and Shri R.A. Gupte, learned counsel for respondent no1.

6. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the grounds of objection taken in the petition. On going through the record and judgment, I do not find any perversity in the judgment. In a particular case, it may happen that there is absolutely no evidence. Then, it can be said that the judgment is perverse. There may be a dispute about sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence. It is a settled law that when there is some evidence, the High Court should not interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I will give the reasons for these observations. Prior to that, some of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, need to be considered.

PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT

7. The proceedings before the Labour Court were started on a reference made by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. The workman, respondent no.1, moved the said Authority. Section 2 (s) of the said Act gives the meaning of the word "Workman.". The word "retrenchment" is clarified in Section 2 (oo) of the said Act. It says about termination plainly by the employer for any reason. There are certain exceptions. Admittedly, they are not applicable in this case.

8. Petitioners say about service intermittently, whereas the workman says about continuous service and termination not as per the law. So, the grievance of the workman is that he was retrenched without following the procedure. Section 25F and Section 25G of the said Act lay down the condition to be followed prior to retrenchment and the procedure for retrenchment respectively. Prior to insisting upon those formalities, a workman has to satisfy the ingredients of Section 25B of the said Act relating to continuous service. If a workman is work