1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LPA No.362/2011 in Writ Petition No.3319/2006 Forest Development Corp. of Mah. and others Vs. Yogeshwar Walmik Titirmare with LPA No.363/2011 in Writ Petition No.3301/2011 Forest Development Corp. of Mah. and others Vs.Kisan Atmaram Kasti. with LPA No.364/2011 in Writ Petition No.3318/2006 Forest Development Corp. of Mah. and others Vs. Manohar Shripat Sakharkar with LPA No.365/2011 in Writ Petition No.3315/2006 Forest Development Corp. of Mah. and others Vs. Hari Shravan Randive =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ms. T. Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. G. Loney, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 23/11/2011. 1] The respondents had challenged their termination as unfair labour practice by filing ULP Complaints before the Labour Court at Chandrapur. The Labour Court, vide its common judgment dated 6.8.2004, granted relief of reinstatement to the respondents on their former posts with continuity of service but without back wages with present appellants/employer. This judgment was challenged in separate Revisions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and 2 Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court at Chandrapur. The learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed those revisions and dismissed ULP complaints. The respective workmen then approached this Court in four different writ petitions and vide judgment dated 24/25th February 2011, the learned Single Judge has allowed those petitions. The judgment of the Industrial Court has been set aside and the judgment in favour of workmen passed by the Labour Court has been restored. 2] Advocate Ms. Khan appearing for the appellants-Employer Forest Development Corporation has contended that the learned single Judge has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttarnchal Forest Development Corpn. and another Vs. Jabar Singh and others : (2007) 2 SCC 112. According to her, said judgment is distinguishable on facts as here there is no plea of any manufacturing process and no such process has been established. According to her, in order to show that activity constitutes manufacturing process or then establishment is an industrial establishment available of fixed site is must and that also has not been pleaded or proved. Our attention has been invited to Annexure-H at Exhibit 45 on which learned Single Judge has placed reliance to demonstrate that the activities of petitioner-Company as show in Clause 2 (k) 3 also do not show that the provisions of Section 25N can be attracted. The contention is Labour Court did not frame any issue about application of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act and though the burden was upon workmen, the learned Single Judge has only by placing reliance of above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court restored the judgment of Labour Court. It is pointed out that respective workman was on daily wage and hence was not holding any post and as such there could not have been reinstatement on any post. 3] Advocate Loney, on the other hand, contends that in complaint there is specific plea of about nature of activities and also about relevance of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act and in that background, the learned Labour Court has considered the controversy. He relies upon the cross-examination of one Rajendra Kadam then working as Divisional Manager with the appellants to show the nature of activities and number of workers. He states that even cutting of trees by using axe as has been held manufacturing activity of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. and another Vs. Jabar Singh and others (supra). He also relies upon Exhibit 45 to urge that manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellants are apparent from it. 4 4] Perusal of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. and another Vs. Jabar Singh and others (supra) shows consideration of question as to what constitutes “Factory” and “Manufacturing process” . The activity of cutting trees by axe and changing the shape of the timber into logs by using hand driven saw and removal, disposal and sale thereof undertaken by State Forest Development Corporation is held to constitute manufacturing process within Section 2(k) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consideration in paragraphs 29 and 31 shows this finding. The document at Exhibit 45 on which the appellants have placed reliance at its first page shows total income derived from sales of crop materials, crop II, Compensation claims and other receipts for completed projects appeared to be the major source of income. Perusal of Clause 1(C) shows comparative turnover of crop II material sold during 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The sales of teak poles, teak timber, Non Teak poles, Non Teak Timber, bamboo, Teak firewood, Non teak firewood, stumps/Seedlings/Seeds and compost/Vermi Compost are the instances of the sale. Even compost worth Rs. 4.85 lakhs is shown to have been sold in 2000-2001. The activities of the company on which Advocate Ms. Khan has placed reliance shows nursery activities, plantation, rehabilitation of degraded Forests with rooted stock, schemes by utilising of WFP revolving fund and internal surplus etc. Thus, there are total 18 5 such activities. Perusal of cross-examination of Shri Kadam reveals that he has accepted that all 18 activities were being undertaken in the year 2000-2001. It is not in dispute that the respondents-workmen before this Court have been terminated by order 20th June 2000 i. e. from year 2000-2001. The net profit figure has also been accepted. He also stated that only thinning of old teak plantation was going with the respondents. The cutting and selling of teak wood is admitted to be included in thinning plant as well as bamboo cutting was also going on. The nature of activities undertaken clearly show that the availability of large sites and establishment. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned (supra) therefore has been rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 5] The long service put in by the respondents is not in dispute. Fact that the respondents have completed 240 days is not in dispute. In paragraph 1 of their ULPs after giving details of activities, workmen have alleged that the respondents were running plantation industry at large scale. They have also claimed that they are workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in paragraph 6 they have contended that the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes were applicable. The allegation in paragraph 1 are not disputed in written statement by present appellants before the Labour Court. It is only contended that it is not an industry under Section 2(j) 6 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Little later, in paragraph 6 it is asserted that provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act were applicable and have been complied with. 6] In this situation, when total material on record is looked into, no objection can be taken to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We see no jurisdictional error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, during arguments Advocate Ms. Khan has urged that workmen were not holding any post and hence their reinstatement to a post is not proper. Mr. Loney states that they were casual workers and have been reinstated as daily wager. He has further stated that a complaints under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act seeking advantage of one time regularization scheme framed by State Government are pending before the Competent Court. It is clear to us that respondents are not reinstated on any post but only on daily wages. One of the contentions of Advocate Ms. Khan is though FDCM may be having numerous activities, the workman has not shown that he was working in any such activity. We do not find any such merit in this contention as the material on record sufficiently demonstrate that workmen were working in manufacturing process. Similarly, the grievance that there cannot be automatic reinstatement after retrenchment is found to be vitiated 7 is misconceived in the present facts. 7] In view of this, we find no case is made out warranting interference. The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 8] At this stage, Advocate Ms. Khan seeks continuation of interim order passed in LPA for a period of six weeks so as to enable the Department to take further appropriate steps in the matter. She points out that the respondents would file criminal complaints, if orders are not complied with. Hence, interim relief granted by this Court is continued for a period of six weeks and shall cease to operate thereafter automatically. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.