Karnataka High Court
District Watershed Development ... vs Sri Javarashetty on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44335
WP NO.20423 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.20423 OF 2010 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. DISTRICT WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MYSORE AND KODAGU DISTRICT,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU.
2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FOREST & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by SRI. JAVARASHETTY
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA S/O CHIKKAMARASHETTY,
Location: High CourtKASABAD HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK,
of Karnataka
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26TH JULY, 2006
PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
MYSURU IN I.I.D. NO.5 OF 2001 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44335
WP NO.20423 OF 2010
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner-State is
challenging the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2006
(Annexure-A) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Mysuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Labour
Court') in I.I.D. No.5/2001.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that the respondent was appointed as Watcher
on daily wages with effect from 01st March, 1987 by the
petitioners and his service was terminated on 30th July,
2000. It is the case of the respondent that, he had
worked continuously for more than 240 days in the year
and as such, order of termination is illegal and contrary to
Section 25-D of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence,
the respondent has challenged the same in I.I.D
No.5/2001. The Labour Court, after considering the
material on record, by judgment and award dated 26th
NC: 2024:KHC:44335
WP NO.20423 OF 2010
July, 2006 (Annexure-A), allowed the claim petition in-part
and directed the petitioner-State to reinstate the
respondent herein to service and to pay 50% back wages.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26th July, 2006,
the petitioner-State filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, leaned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for petitioners and Sri.
Gururaj R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for petitioners submitted
that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is non-est
on the ground that the petitioner-State cannot be
considered as an industry under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act').
Accordingly, she places reliance on the judgment of this
Court in case of THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND
AOTHERS vs. NAGAMMA AND OTHERS made in Writ
Petition No.39570 of 2014 decided on 04th January, 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:44335
WP NO.20423 OF 2010
and argued that the impugned award made by the Labour
Court requires to be set-aside in this writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Gururaj R., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submits that, pursuant to
the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2006 made by
the Labour Court, the respondent/I Party has been
reinstated into service and the respondent attained
superannuation and therefore, he contended that, no
interference be called for in this writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, I have carefully examined the order dated 04th
January, 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.39570 of 2014 in
the case of NAGAMMA (supra), wherein, this Court,
following the catena of decisions including the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS vs. PRATAMSINGH
NARSINGH PARMAR reported in (2001)9 SCC 713 held
that the Forest Department cannot be considered as an
'industry' under the I.D. Act. In that view of the matter, I
NC: 2024:KHC:44335
WP NO.20423 OF 2010
find force in the submission made by learned High Court
Government Pleader that the petitioner-Forest Department
cannot be considered as an 'industry' . Accordingly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition allowed;
2) Judgment and award dated 26th July, 2006
(Annexure-A) passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D
No.5/2001 is set-aside.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
