Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2528  OF 2008

DIVISIONAL LOGGING MANAGER, U.P. FOREST CORPORATION           Appellant(s)                      :VERSUS:

SURENDER SINGH                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel  

for the appellant in support of this appeal and Ms.  

Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.  

2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment  

and  order  dated  18.11.2005  rendered  by  the  High  

Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition  

No.1047 of 2002 thereby dismissing the writ petition  

filed by the appellant. The short facts leading to  

this appeal are this wise.

Page 2

2

3. According  to  the  appellant,  the  respondent  

herein was working as a Logging Forest Guard and  

that he was engaged on seasonal basis.  The case of  

the respondent is that he had regular work to do,  

his employment was not on seasonal basis and he had  

rendered continuous service for more than one year.  

It  appears  that  the  respondent  had  joined  as  a  

Forest Guard way back in 1986 and he continued in  

that position until February, 1993.  It is the case  

of  the  respondent  that  his  services  were  

discontinued  thereafter  whereas  the  case  of  the  

appellant is that since he was not coming for work,  

the appellant sent him a retrenchment notice dated  

19.6.1995  which,  according  to  the  appellant,  he  

declined to receive. In any case, the fact remained  

that before the retrenchment notice, he had raised  

an industrial dispute in January, 1994.  

4. Considering all these facts, the Labour Court  

came to the conclusion that the order of termination  

of  the  services  of  the  workman  was  illegal  and  

unjustified  as  the  retrenchment  notice  was  

subsequent to his termination.  That being so, the

Page 3

3

Labour Court held that it was a case of termination  

of  his  services  and  not  the  case  where  he  had  

stopped from coming to work. Therefore, the Labour  

Court  was  of  the  view  that  his  termination  with  

effect from 23.2.1993 was improper and illegal.  The  

Labour Court, therefore, directed his reinstatement  

with 50% back-wages and with costs of Rs.1,000/-.   

5. A writ petition was filed by the appellant  

before the High Court for quashing the order passed  

by the Labour Court which, as stated earlier, came  

to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the  

Uttarakhand High Court.  

6. Mr. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for  

the appellant submitted that the appellant did not  

require the services of the respondent for all the  

time and that there was seasonal work for which the  

respondent  was  engaged.  He  had  stopped  coming  to  

work and therefore, instead of retrenchment notice,  

the retrenchment compensation was sent to him which  

fact was not considered by the Labour Court.  

Page 4

4

7. As  against  that,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent submitted that on the basis of the facts  

which have come on record, the inference drawn by  

the Labour Court was justified and therefore, the  

High Court was right in not interfering therewith.  

8. We have noticed the submissions made by the  

learned counsel for the parties. The view taken by  

the  Labour  Court  appears  to  be  a  plausible  one  

inasmuch as the Forest Guards are very much required  

in the forest and  there is no reason for a lowly  

paid employee not to report for duty. Similarly, the  

view taken by the Labour Court that the compensation  

amount  was  tendered  to  him  subsequent  to  his  

retrenchment also appears to be correct inasmuch as  

the  respondent  had  already  raised  an  industrial  

dispute. The payment made subsequently was, in fact,  

denied. In the facts and circumstances of this case,  

we do not find any error in the order passed by the  

Labour Court or by the High Court. The appeal is  

accordingly dismissed.  

9. We make it clear that in case the respondent  

is  not  reinstated  so  far,  he  will  be  reinstated

Page 5

5

within a period of four weeks from today and the  

back-wages will be paid to him within a period of  

eight weeks from today.   

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

..........................J (RANJAN GOGOI)

New Delhi; April 03, 2013.