Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1638 (RAJ)

Mool Singh Shekhawat v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-18

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 13.12.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara wherein the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that forest Department does not fall in the category of an industry. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question as to whether the Forest Department would fall in the category of industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arose in the case of Fool Singh v. Judge, Labour Court (S.B. civil Writ Petition No. 8490/2014) and was decided vide order dated 20.03.2018, wherein the writ petition of the petitioner therein was allowed with the finding that the respondent Department is covered within the definition of the Industry. 3. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Shambhulal v. Deputy Forest officer & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4249/2007), decided on 15.04.2015 wherein it was held as under: "In the case of Partam Singh (supra), relied upon by the Tribunal, the employee therein was a clerk whereas the petitioners herein were all engaged as daily wage labourers in the forest department. Thus, on facts also, the case of Partam Singh (Supra) does not apply to the case of the present petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare reported in AIR 1995 SC 2898 that the scheme of social foresting undertaken by the forest department cannot be regarded as a part of sovereign function of the State and thus, the issue as to whether the Government department would be covered by the definition of Industry, would have to be decided in context of the nature of duties assigned to the workman concerned. It was held that there was no threshold bar upon the employees in knocking the door of the Industrial Courts for making a grievance about the unfair labour practice adopted by the department. 9. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the following judgments:- (i) State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ram Lal & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 495/2004 decided on 19.9.2011; (ii) State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra & Anr. Reported in 2003 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 897; and (iii) Babu Lal. v. Labour Court (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2005 decided on 25.1.2006. v. Ram Lal & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 495/2004 decided on 19.9.2011; (ii) State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra & Anr. Reported in 2003 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 897; and (iii) Babu Lal. v. Labour Court (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2005 decided on 25.1.2006. In all these cases, it was held by the Division and Single Benches of this Court that the forest department is covered by the definition of Industry. 10. So far as the aspect of delay in raising the dispute is concerned, in the case of Raghubir Singh. v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab. I.C. 4266, it was held by the Supreme Court that reference of industrial dispute for adjudication can be made by the Government at any time. It was further held that provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to such claims. 11. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claims of the petitioners were dismissed on the aforesaid two grounds viz., the respondent department not being an industry and the claims being belated, cannot be sustained as being grossly illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal as a matter of fact preempted the claims filed on behalf of the petitioners without putting them on notice on the issue of the department not being the industry. They were required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. 12. The view taken by the Tribunal that the claims were liable to be thrown on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly is also unsustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Raghubir Singh's case (supra). 13. Resultantly, the instant writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 10.5.2006 is quashed and the matters are remanded back to the Labour Court, Bhilwara for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. The Labour Court will proceed with the cases expeditiously and decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 4. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Fool Singh (supra), the present writ petition is allowed. The Labour Court will proceed with the cases expeditiously and decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 4. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Fool Singh (supra), the present writ petition is allowed. The award dated 13.12.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court concerned to decide the matter on merits in terms of law laid down in the case of Shambhulal (supra).