Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Labour is valid.

1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in W.C. No. 67/91, dated 15.3.1994.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition as stated in the affidavit are that the first respondent was appointed as a forest guard on 22.10.1979 and he worked as such till 7.3.1986. While he was working as forest guard in Myladumparai beat of Gandamanur Range of Madurai Division from 27.1.1986, he applied for medical leave on 8.3.1986 & 9.3.1986, and, thereafter, he extended his leave. The petitioner referred his case to the Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and on 11.7.1986, the Medical Board has examined him and gave a certificate stating that the first respondent was suffering from Tuberculosus Meningitis and Physically Handicapped and also having defect in vision. The first respondent again applied for further medical leave upto 22.9.1987 and the Medical Board again examined him on 19.9.1987 and gave a certificate that there is no progress in his vision, and, therefore, he is unfit to work as forest guard. Hence, the first respondent was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated 22.9.1987, on medical grounds, with effect from 19.9.1987 as per Rules 36 & 43 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. According to the petitioner, the first respondent was not eligible to get pension, and, therefore, he was given D.C.R.G., which was received by him and his request for reappointment was rejected as he was not physically fit. The first respondent submitted a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, impleading the District Forest Officer, Madurai and District Collector, Madurai as respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively claiming compensation in W.C. No. 67 of 1991.

3. The said case was contested by the petitioner herein. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, passed an award granting payment of Rs.95.789. The said amount was directed to be paid within 30 days, failing which, to pay 6% interest per annum from the date of termination of service i.e., 22.9.1987. The said award of the second respondent made in W.C. No. 67 of 1991, dated 15.3.1994, was challenged before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by the writ petitioner and obtained interim stay in O.A. No. 4689 of 1994.

4. The main ground urged in this Writ Petition is that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has no jurisdiction to award the compensation, after the formation of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, on 12.12.1988, since the first respondent was a Government Servant. The second ground of attack is that the first respondent was not a workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the Petition filed by the first respondent claiming compensation is not maintainable. Thirdly, it is contented that the High Court of Madras, in W.P. No. 6985 of 1986, held that the Arignar Anna Zoolagical Park, (Unit of Forest Department) is not an industrial establishment, and, therefore, the first respondent, who was a forest guard working in Forest Department, cannot claim compensation as an industrial worker.

5. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the Application filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal is not maintainable, since there is an Appeal remedy available under the Workmen's Compensation Act and only to avoid the pre-deposit, the petitioner has chosen to bypass the Appeal remedy and filed this Original Application. In the counter affidavit, it is also contented that while the first respondent was employed as forest guard, he suffered from Tuberculosus and loss of vision, pursuant to which, he was compulsorily retired from service, apart from the fact that the first respondent is a handicapped person. The first respondent was having wife and children and was also having a widowed mother and only to claim the compensation, the first respondent has filed t