Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry'

Compensation of ₹3.5 lakhs awarded to work-woman Kamaljit after illegal termination by Forest Department
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Industrial Tribunal's finding that the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman employed by the Forest Department, was unlawful. The court awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.5 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement, aligning this case with similar previous decisions involving the Forest Department.
Kamaljit, who initially joined the Forest Department as a labourer in 1990, worked until her termination on January 1, 2001. She filed a claim under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, citing that her termination violated Section 25-F of the Act, as it was executed without proper notice or retrenchment compensation. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in her favor, ordering her reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back-wages from the date of her demand notice.

Forest Department as an Industry: The primary objection from the Forest Department was that it did not qualify as an 'industry' under the ID Act. However, the Tribunal, referencing previous judgments including Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish, reaffirmed that the Forest Department falls within the ID Act's definition of an industry.

Inconsistent Testimonies: The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Forest Department's witnesses. While MW1 Parmod Kumar claimed Kamaljit worked from October 1998 to January 2001, MW2 Sanjiv Kumar stated she worked from July 1994 to October 1998. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's conclusion that Kamaljit was indeed employed by the department and her termination was unlawful.

Violation of Section 25-F: The Tribunal determined that Kamaljit had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding year before her termination, entitling her to notice and compensation under Section 25-F of the ID Act, which the Forest Department failed to provide.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth, delivering the oral judgment, emphasized that the Forest Department’s failure to follow due process rendered the termination illegal. The decision noted that Kamaljit’s case was similar to those of her co-workers, who were previously awarded compensation instead of reinstatement due to their superannuation and extended unemployment.
Justice Vashisth stated, "The termination of services of the claimant is held illegal. There is no evidence on the file that she was gainfully employed though the plea has been taken in the written statement."
This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures during employee termination and reinforces the classification of the Forest Department as an industry under the ID Act. The judgment, awarding ₹3.5 lakhs in compensation to Kamaljit, aligns with precedents and highlights the court's commitment to protecting workers' rights.
 

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024