UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND ANR. versus JABAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 12-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND ANR. 
v. 
JABAR SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 25-L and 25-N. 
c 
Industrial establishment-Workmen-Retrenchment-Workmen were 
engaged by Forest Corporation on daily-wage basis for the measurement of 
wood, protection of timber at the logging site and depots of the Corporation-
As there was no work, the services of the said workmen were retrenched in 
accordance with S. 6-N-The Labour Court held that the retrenchment order 
D was legal and valid-It further held that the provisions of S. 25-N of the 
Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted as the Forest Corporation was not 
an industrial establishment as defined in S. 25-L of the Industrial Disputes 
Act-However, the High Court set aside the Labour Court's award holding 
that the Industrial Disputes (UP.) Rules made S. 25-N applicable to industrial 
E establishments in the State-Correctness of-Held: The work of the Forest 
Corporation consisted of "cutting of trees by axe and changing the shape of 
the timber into logs by using hand-driven saw"-The process of cutting by 
axe and changing the shape by saw is a manufacturing process-Thus, the 
Corporation is an industrial establishment within the definition of Section 
25-L-The .retrenchment notices, did not comply with either of the two 
F requirements of Section 25-N-Hence, workmen are entitled to be reinstated 
with full back-wages and continuity of service-Factories Act, 1948, S. 2(k) 
and 2(m)-lndustrial Disputes (UP.) Rules, 1976-UP. Forest Corporation 
Act, 1974, Ss. 14 and 15. 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Alternative remedy--
Availing of-Writ petition filed without availing of alternative remedy under 
the Industrial Disputes Act-Writ petition also filed after a delay of I 0 
years-However, High Court allowed the writ petition-Correctness of-
II 
852 
-
•· 
... --
UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPN. v. JABAR SINGH 
853 
Held: High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of A 
/aches as well as non-availing of alternative remedy. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Manufacturing process"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(k) 
of the Factories Act, 1948. 
B 
"Factory"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(m) of the Factories 
Act, 1948. 
"Industrial establishment"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 25-
L of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
C 
Civil Appeal No. 5728 of 2006 
The predecessor-Corporation of the appellant had engaged the 
respondents-workmen as daily-wage workers for the purpose of measurement 
of wood, protection of timber at the logging site and depots of the Corporation. D 
As there was no work, the services of the respondents were retrenched in 
accordance with Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
An industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court by the 
respondents alleging non-compliance with Section 25-N of the Act. The 
Labour Court held that the retrenchment order was legal and valid. It further E 
held that the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
were not attracted as the predecessor-Corporation of the appellant was not an 
industrial establishment as defined in Section 25-L of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents 
holding that the Industrial Disputes (U.P.) Rules, 1976 have made Section 
25-N applicable in relation to industrial establishment in the State. Hence 
the appeal. 
Civil Appeal No. 5729 of 2006 
Some of the retrenched respondents-workmen, in similar 
circumstances, filed writ petitions, after a delay of 10 years, directly before 
the High Court without first approaching the Labour Court but the High Court 
also allowed these writ petitions following its earlier decision. Hence the 
appeal. 
F 
G 
H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant-
B 
c 
D 
Corporation was neither a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the 
Factories Act, 1948 nor did it carry on manufacturing process with or: without 
the aid of power as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948; and 
that the writ petitions filed directly in the High Court by some of the 
retrenched employees without availing of the alternative remedy were not 
maintainable. 
The following questions a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.