(1.) By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the State of Gujarat, the challenge is against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, rendered, on 1.4.2002, in writ petition, whereby, the petition against the award dated 19th December, 2000 in Ref. (LCR) No. 415 of 1988 came to be rejected, upholding the said award and inter-alia holding that the plea of workmen having not worked for 240 days, and that the unit of Forest Department manufacturing polythene bags is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, raised on behalf of the petitioner appellant before us, is not acceptable.
(2.) We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties, who have taken us through the entire testimonial as well as documentary evidence during the course of submissions before us. We have also given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the proposition of law and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. In so far as interpretation of the proposition of law on Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act is concerned, in the light of the factual profile which is on record, it is not in controversy that the respondent workman was being employed in a manufacturing unit established by the Forest Department for the purpose of manufacture of polythene bags for self-consumption. The finding of the learned Single Judge upholding the award that in the instant case the workman can be said to have been engaged in an industry and the said work falling within the purview of Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act, is sustainable. This proposition of law is very well expounded by the Hon'ble apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & others, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213 and the subsequent Constitutional Bench decision rendered by the apex Court in Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State & anr. Vs. Indiradevai P.S & others - 2000 SCC (L&S) 120. After having taken into consideration the text and the tenor of the factual profile, the decisions and guidelines for inclusion and exclusion in the definitional provision of Section 2(j) of industry, we are satisfied with the view taken by the labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge that the work of manufacturing of polythene bags of the Department of Forest of the Government of Gujarat is answering the eligibility criteria of the definition of industry. We therefore uphold the said finding and proposition.
(3.) In so far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, we are of the opinion, upon critical apprisal, detailed evaluation and the examination of the entire evidence on record, that the finding of the Labourt Court as affirmed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the appellant - State of Gujarat has not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D Act and therefore the termination of the respondent workman from the employment with effect from 6.7.1987 is illegal, is not at all sustainable.