WPMS/2592/2021 of DILWAR SINGH Vs PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DEHRADUN

6. Petitioner has challenged the award rendered by learned Labour Court mainly on the ground that the view taken by learned Labour Court that ‘Forest Department’ is not an ‘industry’ is contrary to the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests & another vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 293. Para 17 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“17. This being the position, we hold that the aforesaid scheme undertaken by the Forest Department cannot be regarded as part of the 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 grievance about adoption of unfair labour practice by the appellants.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Sardarsinh Sabursinh Bariya, reported in 2022 (172) FLR 155, wherein it was held that Forest Department is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act as the activity carried out by the Forest Department, as alleged in the petition is definitely industrial activities.

8. In the case of State of U.P. vs Charan Singh, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 150, Hon’ble Supreme Court held Fisheries Department of the State Government is covered under the definition of ‘Industry’.

2025:UHC:1061