IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.08.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Writ Appeal Nos.581 to 602 of 2010 Chief Executive Officer/ District Forest Officer Sandalwood Industrial Complex Tirupattur 635 601. ..Appellant in all the appeals/ Petitioner vs. Mrs.Mallika .. R1 in W.A.No.581/2010 Mrs.Chinnakannu .. R1 in W.A.No.582/2010 Mrs.K.Rani .. R1 in W.A.No.583/2010 Mrs.Krishnaveni .. R1 in W.A.No.584/2010 Mrs.S.Jothi .. R1 in W.A.No.585/2010 Mrs.Banu .. R1 in W.A.No.586/2010 Mrs.R.Selvi .. R1 in W.A.No.587/2010 Mrs.Rathinammal .. R1 in W.A.No.588/2010 Mrs.Rani .. R1 in W.A.No.589/2010 Mrs.Sivakami .. R1 in W.A.No.590/2010 Mrs.Saroja (died) 2. C.Kumar 3. C.Rani 4. C.Mallika 5. C.Maheswari https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. C.Senthilkumar .. Respondents 2 to 6 legal heirs of the deceased first respondent ..R2-R6 in W.A.No.591/2010 Mrs.Neela .. R1 in W.A.No.592/2010 Mrs.Pachiyammal .. R1 in W.A.No.593/2010 Mrs.Lakshmi .. R1 in W.A.No.594/2010 Mrs.Vanitha .. R1 in W.A.No.595/2010 Mrs.Padma .. R1 in W.A.No.596/2010 Mrs.Theresa .. R1 in W.A.No.597/2010 Mrs.Kamala .. R1 in W.A.No.598/2010 Mrs.Karpuravalli .. R1 in W.A.No.599/2010 Mrs.Vasantha .. R1 in W.A.No.600/2010 Mrs.K.Vijaya .. R1 in W.A.No.601/2010 Mrs.Janaki (died) 2. P.Munirathinam 3. P.Anumuthu 4. P.Maharani 5. P.Karpagam 6. P.Poongodi .. Respondents 2 to 6 legal heirs of the deceased first respondent ..R2-R6 in W.A.No.602/2010 The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore. .. R2 in WA.Nos.581-590, 592 to 601/2010 & R1 in W.A.Nos.591 & 602/2010. Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order of this court dated 01.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos.3476 to 3497 of 2001. Writ Petitions filed under article 226 of the constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Common award dated 14.12.2000, passed in I.D.Nos.15, 26, 33, 30, 22, 29, 21, 16, 27, 25, 31, 32, 20, 23, 34, 36, 35, 24, 28, 18, 19 and 17 of 1999 respectively on the file of the second respondent Labour Court, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.M.K.Subramaniam Spl. Govt. Pleader (Forest) R1 in WA Nos.581 to 590, 592 to 596, 598 to 611/10, R1- died in WA 602/10 - R1 Died in WA 599/11, steps due. RR2 to 6 in WA 591/10, RR3 to 7 in WA 602/11 : Mr.S.T.Varadharajalu COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN,J.) All these appeals are directed against the common order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Chief Executive Officer/District Forest Officer, Sandalwood Industrial Complex, Tirupattur. 2. The first respondent in each of the writ appeals were employed as Grade-III Mazdoors in the Additional Sandalwood Depot on a daily wage of Rs.43.10. After nearly twenty years of service, they were stopped from working from 10.9.1997. Hence, they raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court to reinstate them with full backwages and continuity of service. The disputes were taken together and by a common award dated 14.12.2000, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of each of the respondent with full backwages, continuity of service and all other monetary benefits. 3. The said award was questioned by the Chief Executive Officer/District Forest Officer, Sandalwood Industrial Complex, Tirupattur in a batch of writ petitions, which were dismissed. The only challenge in the writ petitions is that the Forest Department is not an 'industry' and therefore, the disputes raised by each of the first respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, are not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (9) SCC 713 (State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar). Even before the learned single Judge, the said judgment was relied upon, nevertheless the learned Judge has chosen to rely upon yet another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (2) SCC 293 (Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare) considering the facts of the case. 4. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/workmen. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that as the Forest Department is discharging sovereign function of the State, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it cannot be considered to be an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar's case, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the writ appeals are liable to be allowed by holding that the industrial disputes are not maintainable in view of the fact that the Forest Department cannot be brought under the definition of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. We have carefully considered the said judgment. In the said judgment, the Apex Court was considering the question as to whether the Forest Department would be brought under the definition of an 'industry' keeping in mind the facts of that case. In that case, the Apex Court was considering the appointment to the posts of Clerks, Clerks-cum-Typists and Typists in the State of Gujarat, which is governed by a set of Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India called the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerks-Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970. Having considered those Rules and also having noticed that there was no specific assertion by the petitioner therein indicating the nature of duty discharged by the petitioner as well as the job of the establishment where he had been recruited, the Apex Court found that his recruitment would govern by the sovereign function of the State, which was being discharged by the Forest Department. 7. On the other hand, the Apex Court considered a similar question as to whether the Forest Department would be an 'industry' in the judgment in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case. The Apex Court was considering the case of casual workmen employed in schemes with permanent basis undertaken by the Forest Department of the State Government and considering the nature of their duties, held that the Forest Department did not discharge the sovereign function while implementing the scheme on permanent basis and ultimately held that the Forest Department is an 'industry' in that case. 8. To find out as to whether in the given set of facts, the appellant/Forest Department would be considered to be an industry, within the meaning of 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, we will have to necessarily examine the nature of job that were performed by the respondents/workmen. The Forest Department after effecting seizures of sandalwood, brings the same to its Depot at Tirupattur and stores it. Thereafter, the sandalwood so stored are processed by way of cutting, cleaning, slicing, polishing, etc. for sale through auction. In order to facilitate the process of cutting, cleaning, slicing, polishing, etc. after the sandalwood was brought to the Depot, the appellant-Department engaged the services of each of the workmen, who are all women as Grade-III Mazdoors with a pay of Rs.43.10 per day. Having made them to work for nearly 20 years, due to a fire broke out in the Depot, they were all sent out without any enquiry. They were recruited through employment exchange and there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is no specific Rules as has been noted by the Apex Court in the judgment in Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar's case and these workmen were only paid a daily wage of Rs.21.50 with allowance of Rs.21.60 totaling Rs.43.10. The nature of the duty that was performed by the Forest Department is also not of sovereign as it is of a commercial nature, since the Forest Department in that Depot performs only the function of processing the sandalwood viz., cutting, cleaning, slicing, polishing etc. and particularly, forming and checking the uncleaned sandalwood trees being received from Forest Depots and reforming and checking of the uncleaned sandalwood tree lots in a quarter. The Labour Court on noticing the above factual aspect has given a finding that the contesting respondents are all women and the Department cannot claim that it is not an 'industry' under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it is not discharging sovereign function in the given facts of the case. 9. The above factual finding of the Labour Court has been duly considered by the learned single Judge, who has accepted the same. In our opinion, we do not find any reason to take a different view than one taken by the Labour Court, which was confirmed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has rightly applied the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare's case on the given facts of the case. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10. As each of the respondents are entitled to backwages, they are permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited in the respective industrial disputes before the Labour Court and they are also entitled to make a claim for arrears, if any. No costs. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ATR To 1. The Chief Executive Officer/ District Forest Officer Sandalwood Industrial Complex Tirupattur 635 601. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Vellore. 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.S.T.Varadarajan, Advocate, SR.46826 W.A.Nos.581 to 602 of 2010 VSV(CO) RH (19.9.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/