STATE OF U P Vs. JAI BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present Appeal along with other connected cases has been listed before this Constitution Bench of five judges on a reference made by a Bench of three Honourable judges of this Court finding an apparent conflict between the decisions of two Benches of this Court in the cases of Chief Conservator of Forests vs. Jagnnath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 of three judges and State of Gujarat vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713 of two judges.

(2.) On the question of whether social forestry department of State, which is a welfare scheme undertaken for improvement of the environment, would be covered by the definition of industry" under S.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the aforesaid Benches (supra) of this Court culled out differently the ratio of the seven judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213] (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Bangalore Water case). The Bench of three judges in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare (supra) based on the decision of Bangalore Water case came to the conclusion that Social Forestry Department is covered by the definition of industry whereas the two judges Bench decision in State of Gujarat vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (supra) took a different view.

(3.) As the cleavage of opinion between the two Benches of this Court seems to have been on the basis of seven judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water, the present case along with the other connected cases, in which correctness of the decision in the case of Bangalore Water is doubted, has been placed before this Bench.