Termination of employment without following statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, warranting compensation rather than reinstatement, especially when the employee has reached superannuation.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By way of present writ petition, petitioner - State of Punjab, Department of Forests & Wildlife Chandigarh through its Secretary and others, have challenged the award dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.2 - Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar (for brevity, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby, Reference No.869 of 2002, under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of respondent No.1 - Kamaljit w/o Des Raj (work-woman).

In the award (P-6), learned Tribunal held that the termination of the work-woman is bad in law, and thus, entitled her to reinstatement on the same post with continuity of service from October 1998, with 50% back-wages from the date of demand notice.

2. Pleaded case of the work-woman is that she initially joined the service of Management as 'labourer' in the year 1990, and continuously worked till 31.12.2000. On the date of termination from service, w.e.f. 01.01.2001, she was drawing wages of Rs. 2035/- per month. Since, she had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to her termination; the Management was required to follow the principles of the ID Act. Since, neither any notice, nor pay notice or retrenchment notice was paid to the work-woman. Thus, her termination is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

3. In the written statement filed by the Forest Department (Management) dual pleadings were raised i.e.; in preliminary objections, it was pleaded that Forest Department is not an 'Industry', and on merits, it was pleaded that the work-woman has worked as daily wage labourer in the Forest Nursery, Phillaur on piecemeal rates and payment of wages were made to her accordingly.

4. On the first objection raised by the Management, while relying upon the Divisional Forest Officer v. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264, learned Tribunal held that said objection is not tenable, and already the Forest Department has been interpreted as 'Industry' under the definition of ID Act.

5. After examining the statements of the witnesses i.e. work-woman as WW1, and Management's witness - Parmod Kumar, appeared as MW1 and Sanjiv Kumar as MW2, learned Tribunal recorded its finding that the stand taken by the Management's witnesses i.e. MW1 & MW2, is inconsistent, because, as per MW1 - Parmod Kumar, work-woman joined the services in October 1998 and was terminated on 01.01.2001, whereas, as per the submission of MW2 - Sanjiv Kumar, work-woman worked from July 1994 to October 1998.

From the said inconsistent statement, learned Tribunal appears to have rightly reached to the conclusion that the factum of engagement in service by the Management is well established. However, observing that there is a violation of provisions of the ID Act, learned Tribunal held that the work-woman has proved her services with the Forest Department from October 1998 to 31.12.2000. Finding recorded by learned Tribunal, in paragraphs No.13, 14, 15 & 16 of the impugned award (P-6), are reproduced here-under:-

"13. I have taken into consideration the submissions of both the sides. According to the statement of claim, she joined as Labourer in the year 1990 and continued to work till 31.12.2000 but in her statement, she deposed that she continued to serve till 7.9.01 and her services were terminated on 8.9.01. According to MW1 Parmod Kumar, the services of the claimant were engaged in Oct., 1998 which were terminated on 1.1.01 as it was off season. MW Sanjiv Kumar deposed that the work in the Forest Department is seasonal one and there is no regular vacancy. He also deposed that the claimant is gainfully employed. In his cross examination, he denied that the claimant was employed from 1990 to 31.12.2000 and she was refused work on 1.1.01. He deposed that she was asked to return on job as per letter Ex.M2.

14. According to MW Sanjiv Kumar, the claimant has not worked from 199-to 31.12.2000 but th