LexCHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS versus JAGANNATH MARUTI KONDHARE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
A
v.
JAGANNATH MARUTI KONDHARE
DECEMBER 6, 1995
B
(A.M. AHMADI, C.J., B.L. HANSARIA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 s.2(j)-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971-"ln-
dustry''-Scheme undertaken by Forest Department for creation of park under C
bio-aesthetic development for benefit of urban population, or social forestry
work, whether sovereign function vf state-Whether Forest Depmtment can be
"industry''-Held, dichotomy or sovereign and non-sovereign function does not
exist-It would depend on nature of power and manner of its exer-
cise-Scheme, held, is not part of inalienable or inescapable function of
state-Such work could be undertaken by an agency other than an instrumen- D
tality of state-Except the strictly understood sovereign function, welfare ac-
tivities of the state would come within the definition of industry-Sovereign
functions-Employment Guarantee Schemes.
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair E
Labour Practices Act 1971-Schedule W, item 6-Unfair labour prac-
tice-Workmen employed as casual workers for years-{]nfair labour practice
whether established-Whether burden on workmen to establish that object of
continuing them for years as casual workers was to deprive them of status
and privileges of pennanent employees-Held, object of State Act, inter alia,
being prevention of unfair labour practices, it would be thwmted if burden
placed on workman which he cannot reasonably discharge-Inference may be
drawn on the basis of facts of case-Further, as in the present case, pennanen-
cy writ large, and yet persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years-State
government, held, had indulged in unfair labour practice-Minimum· Wages
Act 1948.
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act 1971-Schedule W, item 6-Unfair labour prac-
tice---Regularisation of workmen employed by Fore st Department whether to
F
G
be interfered with--Held, concerned workmen having been employed under
schemes to advance objects having pennanent basis, relief of regularisation H
259
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A not to be inteifered with-Further, right to be paid wages mealll for per-
manent workers automatically flows from regularisatio11--Financia/ strain of
state to reason to deny pennanency to workmen-Relief of regularisation,
however, not ipso facto available to all casual employees either of Forest
Dep01tment or any other dep01tment of State-Claim of casual employees for
B permanency to be decided on merits of each cas~Regula1isa
tion-Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act 1977, S.13-lndustrial Dis-
putes Act 1947.
Workmen employed in the Panchgaon Parwati Scheme near Pnne,
and in social forestry work in Ahmednagar District, moved the Indnstrial
C Tribnnal alleging unrair labour practices being practised by the Forest
Department or the State government. The Panchgaon Parwati Scheme,
based on a policy taken in April 1976, was to be initially for a period of
five years and an area or about 245 hectares. The scheme was for the
creation or a park under bio-aesthetic development for the benefit of the
D urban population and 'to fulfil bio-aesthetic, recreational and educational
aspirations of the people .. ." The Forest Division was also doing afforesta·
tion for soil/moisture conservation under various State level schemes as
well as Employment Guarantee Schemes for a period of five years.
The Industrial Tribunal found that the workmen had admittedly
E been in the employment of the State for 5-6 years and in each year had
worked for a period ranging from 100 to 330 days.
The questions for determination by this court were whether the
Forest Department of. the State government is an 'industry' within the
F meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which defini-
tion had been adopted by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unious
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (State Act); and
whether the relief of regnlarisation given by the Industrial Court needed
interference.
G
The State contended that the function discharged by the Forest
Department nuder the schemes in question was sovereign in nature; that
to be found to be an unfair labour practice, it was not sufficient that the
workmen had been employed as casuals for years, but that the workmen
were further requireExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.