State of Haryana vs Babu Lal

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated April 19, 2000 (copy annexure P-4) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 40% back wages.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this petition is without merit.

The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of respondent No. 1 was of a seasonal nature. There is no evidence shown to us from which the Labour Court could have come to the conclusion that the service of respondent No. 1 was of a seasonal nature. It is not that all the employees of the Forest Department can be termed as seasonal workers. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on a judgment in the case of other workman rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6503 of 1992. However, the Court had decided that writ petition from the facts of that case and relying on one order. The facts are to be pleaded and proved in each case and when the plea of the petitioner that the service of respondent No. 1 was of a seasonal nature is not proved in this case, the petitioner cannot take advantage of merely raising that plea and citing some other facts of some other workmen. For the said plea, no issue has been pressed or claimed for in the Court below.

No other ground has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

As a result, this writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.