Bombay High Court
Lalchand Ramaji Uikey vs The Assistant Conservator Of Forest ... on 7 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11903
-- 1 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5233 OF 2019
Lalchand Ramaji Uikey
Aged about 39 years
R/o Mangejhari, Post Sukadi Dakaram, .. Petitioner
Tah. Tiroda, District Gondia
Versus
1. The Assistant Conservator of Forest
Wildlife, Sakoli, Tah. Sakoli,
District Bhandara
2. The Range Forest Officer,
Wildlife, Sakoli, Tah. Sakoli,
.. Respondents
District Bhandara
3. The Conservator of Forest
Wildlife, Gondia,
Tah. & District Gondia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Bhure, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Madiwale, AGP for respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBARE, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 07, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondents.
(2) This petition is directed against the order dated 11/05/2017
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhandara, whereby
PAGE 1 OF 7
-- 2 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
reference was answered in the negative.
(3) It is the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the
Reference was referred by the Additional Commissioner of Labour for adjudication
under Section 10(1) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to
determine whether the petitioner should be reinstated in service by party
No.1/respondent No.1 with full back wages and continuity of service. It is the
case of the petitioner that he was employed as Chowkidar/Watchman vide its
order issued in the month of 2003 and he used to receive monthly salary of
Rs.2100/- and in the course of his employment, his duty was to protect the forest
trees from illegal felling, illegal cattle grazing and poaching. For carrying out said
duty he used to stay in camps in the forest. He performed all the incidental jobs
assigned to him by his superiors in the Forest Department. Therefore, his specific
contention is that his work was perennial in nature.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
continuously worked with the department for about 5 years, but despite of
completing more than 240 days in every calendar year of service, the department
did not accord him the status of permanent employee. It is his contention that the
Forest Department is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was terminated w.e.f. 01/07/2007 without
following due process of law. He submitted his reply to legal notice through his
counsel on 28/02/2012, but the said reply was not answered back and therefore,
he challenged his termination before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Bhandara on 04/04/2012, by contending that his oral termination dated
PAGE 2 OF 7
-- 3 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
01/07/2007 is totally in disregard to the principles of natural justice and is in
blatant violations of the provisions of law. Before termination of the services of
the petitioner, the respondent neither issued notice of termination nor paid him
notice pay in lieu of notice. He has not been paid retrenchment compensation
and therefore, it violated the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Before terminating his services, the respondent failed to publish the
seniority list, much less, have not maintained the seniority list of the employees
properly.
(5) He further submitted that his termination is in total contravention
of the Model Standing Order, 1946, thereby violating the provisions of Section 25-
G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, he seeks relief of
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that the
findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are not proper. There was a
specific application moved by the present petitioner before the learned Labour
Court asking the respondents to place on record the documents pertaining to the
employment of the petitioner. He would further submit that despite specific
application, no such record was produced before the learned Labour Court by
respondents. He would further submit that there is non-compliance of Section 25-
G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and seniority was not followed. The
principle of "last come fist go" was also not followed. On that count he submit that
the Labour Court committed an error while answering the reference in the
negative.
PAGE 3 OF 7
-- 4 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
(7) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents submits that the petitioner failed to prove his case that he had
worked with the department during that period. He invited my attention to the
observations made by the learned Labour Court that after submission of
application by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, he was permitted to
inspect the record. In spite of granting such order, the petitioner never turned up
to inspect the record, therefore, he submitted that learned Labour Court has
rightly considered the matter that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in the preceding year and therefore, he supports the order.
(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
specific application was filed and it is the department who had withheld the
record. He would further submit that once it was accepted that the petitioner was
in employment deviation is not permissible for not to following provision of Section
25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samishta Dube vs. City Board, Etawah and
another reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 14 , particularly to paras 7, 8,
9, 11 and would submit that law laid down in those paras was not followed.
Therefore, learned Labour Court ought not to have answered the reference in the
negative. Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the above cited judgment reads as under :-
"7. We shall next deal with the point whether, in case
employees junior to the appellant were retained, the directions
issued by the Labour Court could be treated as valid. Section 6-P
of the U.P. Act (which corresponds to Section 25-G of the Central
Act of 1947) states that where any workman in an industrial
establishment is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular
category of workmen in that establishment, - in the absence of
PAGE 4 OF 7
-- 5 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
any agreement between the employer and the workmen in this
behalf - the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who
was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for
reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any other
person. Now this provision is not controlled by conditions as to
length of service contained in Section 6-N (which corresponds to
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947). Section 6-P
does not require any particular period of continuous service as
required by Section 6-N. In Kamlesh Singh v. Presiding Officer
1986 Supp SCC 679 in a matter which arose under this very
Section 6-P of the U.P. Act, it was so held. Hence the High Court
was wrong in relying on the fact that the appellant had put in only
three and a half months of service and in denying relief. (See also
in this connection Central Bank of India v. S.Satyam (1996) 5 SSC
419 ).
8. Nor was the High Court correct in stating that no rule of
seniority was applicable to daily-wagers. There is no such
restriction in Section 6-P of the U.P.Act read with Section 2(z) of
the U.P. Act which defines ''workman''.
9. It is true that the rule of ''first come, last go'' in Section 6-P
could be deviated from by an employer because the section uses
the word ''ordinarily''. It is, therefore, permissible for the employer
to deviate from the rule in cases of lack of efficiency or loss of
confidence etc., as held in Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Workmen AIR
1960 SC 762. But the burden will then be on the employer to
justify the deviation. No such attempt has been made in the
present case. Hence, it is clear that there is clear violation of
Section 6-P of the U.P. Act.
10. .................
11. In the result, the High Court was wrong in setting aside the
orders of the Labour Court. We accordingly set aside the
judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the Labour
Court. The said order of the Labour Court will be complied with by
respondent within 15 days of the receipt of this order. As the re-
appointment was denied from the date of the award, namely,
28.1.1993, the appellant will be entitled to re-appointment and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 28.1.1993 including back-wages
inasmuch as no attempt has been made by the respondent to
contend that the appellant was otherwise gainfully employed.
Appeal is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to
costs."
(9) After going through the record, I find that there was application
Exh.U-5 filed on 11/08/2014 calling upon respondent No.1 to file payment
voucher, payment receipt from May, 2003 to 01/07/2007, muster roll of the said
PAGE 5 OF 7
-- 6 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
period, seniority list of 2004-2006 and one G.R. dated 02/07/2003. On that
application petitioner was directed to first state the beat in which he had worked
from May, 2003 to 01/07/2007, so that respondents would be directed to produce
those documents. The petitioner failed to state the beats in which he had worked
for the said period. Therefore, his request to produce the documents was
rejected and said order attained the finality, as the petitioner had not challenged
the same. However, an order was passed by the learned Labour Court that the
petitioner was having right to inspect the said document, but the petitioner neither
visited the office nor verified the documents and therefore, the petitioner failed to
bring on record, the material documents to prove that he has continuously worked
for more than 240 days in any preceding year of his service, more particularly, in
the preceding year of his termination.
(10) Learned Labour Court had observed that though the witness of
the respondents Shri Naresh Khandate (D.W.No.1) had admitted in cross-
examination that the petitioner was engaged in the month of 2003 and he was
terminated on 01/07/2007, however, he denied that the petitioner had worked for
more than 240 days in all these years of 2003 to 2007. But the burden to prove
that he has worked in the department for more than 240 days in the preceding
year cannot be shifted upon the respondent department and the petitioner has to
at least prove primarily, by placing on record some documents which reflect that
he had worked there, but he failed to produce such document and therefore,
learned Labour Court has rightly observed that the petitioner had failed to prove
his case.
PAGE 6 OF 7
-- 7 -- WP 5233.2019 (J).odt
(11) After going through the impugned orders and documents which
are placed on record, I find that the petitioner failed to prove that they had worked
with the department for more than 240 days in the preceding year and to that
effect, no record was produced by them before the learned Labour Court.
(12) The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9 itself has observed that the rule
of "last come first go" in Section 6-P could be deviated from by an employer
because the section uses the word "ordinarily". It is therefore, permissible for the
employer to deviate from the rule in case of lack of efficiency or loss of
confidence, etc.
(13) In this petition, the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked
with the department for 240 days in the preceding year, therefore, learned Labour
Court has rightly considered the matter. Hence, I do not find any reason to
interfere in the order passed by the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/11/2025 19:37:58
