Ganesha Ram @APPELLANT@Hash Judge, Labour Court, District Bikaner

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the award dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby on a

reference made to it by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court rejected the claim on coming to the conclusion that the respondent-Forest

Department was not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, wherein, the

Court has come to the conclusion that it cannot be held as a thumb rule that the respondent-Department is not an Industry and, therefore, the award

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Reliance was placed on judgment in Shambhulal v. Deputy Forest Officer & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4249/2007, decided on 15.04.2015 and

Laxman Singh & Anr. v. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5418/2006, decided on 14.12.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the Labour Court after considering the material

available on record, has come to the conclusion that the respondent-Department was not an Industry and the said award does not call for any

interference.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

This Court in the case of Shambhulal v. Deputy Forest Officer & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4249/2007, decided on 15.04.2015 while deciding a

similar nature dispute laid down and directed as under:-

“In the case of Partam Singh (supra), relied upon by the Tribunal, the employee therein was a clerk whereas the petitioners herein were all

engaged as daily wage labourers in the forest department. Thus, on facts also, the case of Partam Singh (supra) does not apply to the case of the

present petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare

reported in AIR 1995 SC 2898 that the scheme of social foresting undertaken by the forest department cannot be regarded as a part of sovereign

function of the State and thus, the issue as to whether the Government department would be covered by the definition of Industry, would have to be

decided in context of the nature of duties assigned to the workman concerned. It was held that there was no threshold bar upon the employees in

knocking the door of the Industrial Courts for making a grievance about the unfair labour practice adopted by the department.

The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the following judgments :-

(i) State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Ram Lal & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.495/2004 decided on 19.9.2011 ; (ii) State of Rajasthan vs.

Ram Chandra & Anr. Reported in 2003(2) DNJ (Raj.) 897 ; and

(iii) Babu Lal. Vs. Labour Court (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9132/2005 decided on 25.1.2006.

In all these cases, it was held by the Division and Single Benches of this Court that the forest department is covered by the definition of Industry.

So far as the aspect of delay in raising the dispute is concerned, in the case of Raghubir Singh. Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar

reported in 2014 Lab.I.C. 4266, it was held by the Supreme Court that reference of industrial dispute for adjudication can be made by the Government

at any time. It was further held that provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to such claims.

In view of the above discussion, the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claims of the petitioners were dismissed on the

aforesaid two grounds viz., the respondent department not being an industry and the claims being belated, cannot be sustained as being grossly illegal

and arbitrary. The Tribunal as a matter of fact preempted the claims filed on behalf of the petitioners without putting them on notice on the issue of the

department not being the industry. They were required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on this issue.

The view taken by the Tribunal that the claims were liable to be thrown on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly is also unsustainable in

view of the Supreme Court judgment in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra).

Resultantly, the instant writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 10.5.2006 is quashed and the matters are remanded back to the Labour Court,

Bhilwara for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. The Labour Court will proceed with the cases expeditiously and decide the same

preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.â€​

The aspect decided by the Tribunal pertaining to the Forest Department not being an industry has been exhaustively dealt with and a conclusion has

been reached that the petitioner was required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on the said aspect that the Forest Department is covered

within the definition of Industry.

In view thereof, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment of Shambhulal (supra).

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 07.07.2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour

Court to decide the matter on merits in terms of law laid down by this Court in the case of Shambhulal (supra). The Labour Court is directed to ensure

that the matter is preferably decided within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.