Industrial Disputes Act | UP Forest Corporation An 'Industry', 'Mali' Involved In Systematic Activities In Forest Not Casual Employee: Allahabad HC

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Forest Corporation is an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employees working as 'mali' who are involved in systematic activities regarding forests are no casual employees.

The bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held,

“Considering the aforesaid judgments and also nature of the work involved in the present case where the workmen were working on the post of Mali and were involved in the task of plantation in the forest and distribution of forest produce, the said exercise was definitely a systematic activity and they have been working for four years continuously, it cannot be said that they were daily or casual employees engaged only intermittently.”

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fisheries Department v. Charan Singh, the Court held that U.P. Forest Corporation has been recognized as an industry.

Factual Background

Petitioner, Prabhagiya Nideshak Van, claimed that the workmen claiming benefits are working on daily wages in Biswan Range of Sitapur Forest Department. Though some casual employees working in that division were made permanent, however, 15 workmen were not considered or made permanent. Accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised by the Employees' Union which was then referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

Petitioner raised an objection that the Forest Department was not an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to decide the controversy. The Tribunal held that petitioner was covered by the definition of industry and proceeded to allow the claims of the workmen. The Tribunal held that the employees had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and were being paid less than regular employees. Tribunal directed reinstatement of three employees dismissed during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings.

Before the High Court, counsel for petitioner contended that the award by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction as the state Forest Department is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reliance was placed on State of Gujrat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, wherein the Supreme Court had held that

“whenever such a question arises it would be incumbent upon the High Court to go into the nature of the work do be done in that particular organization on the basis of positive delineation of 'industry' and only thereafter one can conclude whether the concerned unit is a industry or not.”

Per Contra, counsel for respondent argued that it has been held in numerous cases that U.P. Forest Corporation is an industry within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, it was not disputed that the workmen were working as casual worker in Social Forestry Scheme of Uttar Pradesh Government. Based on the undisputed facts, the Tribunal had held that they were functioning in systemic activities, planting nurseries, selling plants and distributing the plants and forest produce.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on State of U.P. Forest Department, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that held that Kanpur Prani Udyan established by Forest Department of State of U.P. is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.

In Fisheries Department Vs. Charan Singh, the Supreme Court had held that the Department of Fisheries was an industry because “the object of the establishment of the appellant Department is fulfilled by engaging employees and that the Department is run on a regular basis. Thus, the matter of termination of the services of the workman of the said Department can be legally adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal as the matter is covered under the provisos of the Act read with Schedule II Entry 10. Thus, it has been rightly held by the courts below that the dispute raised by the workman in relation to the termination of his services by the appellant is an industrial dispute.”

Accordingly, the Court rejected the argument of the petitioner that the departments of the State Government undertaking sovereign functions cannot be declared as industry.

The writ petition against the award of the Industrial Tribunal was dismissed.

Case Title: Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37 [WRIT - C No. - 1005250 of 1990]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37

Click Here To Read/Download Order