1995 (12) TMI 341 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Forest Department of the State Government is an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Central Act ), which definition has been adopted by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 the State Act )? Whether in the cases at hand the employer, namely the State Government, had indulged in unfair labour practice visualised by item 6 of Schedule IV of the State Act, as alleged by the respondents before the Industrial Court, Pune/Ahmednagar? Held that - Considering crux of the scheme to implement which some of the respondents were employed, we are of the view that the same cannot be regarded as a part of inalienable or inescapable function of the State for the reason that the scheme was intended even to fulfil the recreational and educational aspirations of the people. We are in no doubt that such a work could well be undertaken by an agency which is not required to be even an instrumentality of the State. This being the position, we hold that the aforesaid scheme undertaken by the Forest Department cannot be regarded as a part of sovereign function of the State, and so, it was open to the respondents to invoke the provisions of the State Act. We would say the same qua the social foresting work undertaken in Ahmednagar district. There was, therefore, no threshold bar in knocking the door of the Industrial Courts by the respondents making a grievance about adoption of unfair labour practice by the appellants. The object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that the present was such a case in as much as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them the status of permanent employees in as much as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered that the Pachgaon Rarwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on increase because of increase in pollution.Permanency is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself. Appeal dismissed. No ground to interefere with the impungned order of the Industrial Courts.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Forest Department of the State Government is an "industry" under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the State Government indulged in unfair labor practices as per item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
3. Whether the directions given by the Industrial Courts need interference.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Forest Department of the State Government is an "industry" under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The primary question was whether the Forest Department qualifies as an "industry" under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court referred to the precedent set in the Bangalore Water-Supply case, which established the "dominant nature test." According to this test, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments determine if an entity qualifies as an industry. The court noted that sovereign functions, strictly understood, alone qualify for exemption, not welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the government. Even within departments discharging sovereign functions, units that are industries and substantially severable can be considered industries.

The court examined the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme and the social forestry work in Ahmednagar district, which were aimed at bio-aesthetic development and afforestation, respectively. The court found that these activities could be undertaken by private agencies and were not inalienable functions of the State. Thus, the Forest Department's activities under these schemes could not be regarded as sovereign functions and were open to the provisions of the State Act.

2. Whether the State Government indulged in unfair labor practices as per item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:

The second issue was whether the State Government indulged in unfair labor practices by employing workers as "badlis," casuals, or temporaries for years to deprive them of permanent status. The Industrial Court found that the respondents had been employed for 5 to 6 years, working for periods ranging from 100 to 330 days each year. The court noted that it would be difficult for workers to prove the employer's intent to deprive them of permanent status. Therefore, it was permissible to infer such intent if workers were kept as casuals for long periods. The court concluded that the primary object of keeping the workers as casuals was to deprive them of permanent status and the associated benefits.

3. Whether the directions given by the Industrial Courts need interference:

The final issue was regarding the relief granted by the Industrial Courts, which directed the State to make the workers permanent with all benefits of permanent employees. The appellants argued that regularizing all casual workers would impose a significant financial burden on the State. The court noted that the relief of regularization was justified given that the workers had been employed for long periods. The court distinguished this case from the Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union case, where the employment was under a scheme providing temporary income support. The court found the present case more akin to the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, where regularization of casual laborers was favored.

The court also addressed the argument that some workers were employed under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, noting that no factual basis for this submission was on record. The court dismissed the financial burden argument, stating that the relief granted would not apply automatically to all casual employees but would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeals, finding no ground to interfere with the Industrial Courts' orders. The directions to make the workers permanent with all associated benefits were upheld, and no order as to costs was made.