The Labour Court's award was quashed due to insufficient evidence supporting the claimant's continuous service and failure to timely raise disputes, violating the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the State has assailed the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No.324/2014, decided on 22.04.2016, titled as Tara Devi versus The Divisional Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P., in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered by the learned Labour Court in the following terms:-

“Whereas time to time termination of the services of Shri Mati Tara Devi w/o Sh. Maghun Ram, R/o village Paha PO Kharihar, Tehsil & District, Kullu, H.P. during year 1996 to year 2010 and finally during April 2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu H.P. without complying with the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that an industrial dispute raised by the respondent herein, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:-

“Whereas time to time termination of the services of Shri Mati Tara Devi w/o Sh. Maghun Ram, R/o village Paha PO Kharihar, Tehsil & District, Kullu, H.P. during year 1996 to year 2010 and finally during April 2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu H.P. without complying with the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

3. The claim put forth by the claimant before the learned Labour Court was that she was engaged as a daily wage Baildar by the Forest Department under Parvati Division of Forest at Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P., in the month of September, 1987. According to the claimant she worked as such till the month of April 2010. She had completed more than240 days continuous service during the said period. In the interregnum, the employer gave her fictional breaks with the intent that the claimant does not claim regularization in service. In the month of April, 2010 her services were retrenched illegally and unlawfully, which amounted to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, especially when persons junior to the claimant were retained.

4. The stand of the employer before the learned Labour Court was that the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis for seasonal works in the month of September, 1998 in Bhuntar Range and thereafter, as and when the claimant turned up for work, she was enrolled on muster roll basis as per the availability of funds and work intermittently. It was denied by the employer that the claimant was engaged continuously from September, 1987 upto the month of April 2010. It was also the stand of the employer that the claimant abandoned her work in the year 2010 and in fact she had never completed 240 days in any of the calendar year.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Learned Labour Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 1996 to 2010 is/was improper and unjustified as alleged?OPP.

2. Whether final termination of services of petitioner during April, 2010 is/was improper and unjustified?OPP.

3. If issue No.1 or issue No.2 are proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to?OPP.

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as allege? OPP.

5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present case as alleged? OPR.

6. Relief.

6. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties to prove their respective submissions, the issues were decided as under:-

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

I