Heard learned counsel for the parties.
First writ petition is directed against award dated 28.6.1997 given in Adjudication case no.97 of 1992 by Presiding Officer Labour Court II U.P. Meerut. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether action of the employer petitioner no.2 Divisional Director Social Forestry Division Civil Lines Meerut terminating the services of its workman respondent no.1, Satya Pal Singh son of Gyan Singh orally on 26.10.1989 was just and valid or not. Labour court held that termination was illegal as the workman had completed six years and retrenchment compensation was not paid to him as required by Section 6 N of U.P.Industrial Dispute Act. Accordingly, reinstatement with full back wages was directed.
Second writ petition is directed against similar award given on the same date by the same Presiding Officer of the labour court in Adjudication Case no.98 of 1992. In the said case also date of termination was same i.e. 26.10.1989 and nature of termination was also similar. In the second case the workman was Satya Pal Singh son of Tara Chandra, respondent no.1 in the said writ petition. In the second case also the labour court granted same relief after holding that the workman had worked for 7 years. The length of service asserted by each workman was not specifically denied by the petitioner employer. However, the workmen themselves admitted that they were daily wagers. Even in the writ petition length of service has not been denied. However, it was asserted before labour court as well as in the writ petitions that the workmen were engaged from time to time in view of availability of work as casual labours on day to day basis.
The main argument raised before the labour court as well as this Court was that Social Forestry Division or Forest Department of State of U.P. is not an Industry. In this regard learned standing counsel has strongly placed reliance upon Supreme Court authority reported in State of Gujarat Vs. P.N. Parmar, 2001(2) E.S.C. 294:2001(9) SCC 713. This authority is by two judges. In the said authority a three judge authority of the Supreme Court reported in Chief Conservator of Forest Vs. Jagannath M Kondhare (1995)(9) JT 465:1996(2) SCC 293 was distinguished. However, thereafter another Bench of the Supreme Court found that both the authorities had expressed divergent views and both were based upon interpretation of Constitutional Bench authority of the Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A Rajappa (seven Judges Constitutional Bench Authorities). Accordingly, the matter was referred to five judges Constitutional Bench. The five judges Constitutional Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench. The reference order is reported in State of U.P. Vs. Jaibir Singh 2005(5) SCC(1). The matter was referred to larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs. Rajappa 1978(2) SCC 213.
It is, therefore, clear that the two Judges Supreme Court authority of State of Gujarat Vs. P.N. Parmar 2001(9) SCC 713 is in conflict with three Judges authority of the Supreme Court reported in Chief Conservator of Forest Vs. J.M.K.(1995)(9) JT 465:1996(2) SCC 293.
Accordingly, for the purposes of deciding these writ petitions particularly the manner in which they are being decided (op.cit) it is neither essential nor appropriate to quash the impugned award totally only on the ground that the position as to whether forest department is or is not an Industry is not very clear.
On inquiry from Court learned counsel for both the workmen categorically admitted that the workmen were appointed on daily wages basis. Even the labour court in the impugned awards has held that workmen were appointed on daily wages casual basis. Supreme Court in several authorities has held that even though it is necessary to pay retrenchment compensation to daily wager also however in case their services are terminated without such payment then they can not be directed to be reinstated and the more appropriate relief to be granted in such a situation is award of reasonable damages/compensation. In this regard reference may be made to Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2140 wherein 9 earlier authorities of the Supreme Court on the same point have been considered.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the workmen that each workman in proceedings under Section 6 H of U.P.I.D. Act for enforcement of the impugned award has realised about Rs. 30,000/-.
Accordingly, impugned awards are set aside and substituted by a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,15,000/- to each of the workman after deducting the amount which may have been realised by each workman subsequent to the award. The amount shall be paid within three months to the workmen and not to their representatives. The amount may also be deposited before labour court. However, same restriction applies to the labour court also. It shall pay the amount to the workman concerned and not to his representative. In case of non payment within three months 1.5% per month interest shall also be payable upon the payable amount since after three months till actual payment or realisation.
Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Rajeev Tripathi, learned standing counsel who very ably argued the case on behalf of the State petitioner.
Order Date :- 6.12.2012 vkg