STATE OF U P Vs. SATYA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. First writ petition is directed against award dated 28.6.1997 given in Adjudication case No. 97 of 1992 by Presiding Officer Labour Court II U.P. Meerut. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether action of the employer petitioner no. 2 Divisional Director Social Forestry Division Civil Lines Meerut terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 1, Satya Pal Singh son of Gyan Singh orally on 26.10.1989 was just and valid or not. Labour Court held that termination was illegal as the workman had completed six years and retrenchment compensation was not paid to him as required by Section 6 N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. Accordingly, reinstatement with full back wages was directed.

(2.) Second writ petition is directed against similar award given on the same date by the same Presiding Officer of the labour Court in Adjudication Case no. 98 of 1992. In the said case also, date of termination was same i.e. 26.10.1989 and nature of termination was also similar. In the second case, the workman was Satya Pal Singh son of Tara Chandra, respondent no. 1 in the said writ petition. In the second case also the labour Court granted same relief after holding that the workman had worked for 7 years. The length of service asserted by each workman was not specifically denied by the petitioner employer. However, the workmen themselves admitted that they were daily wagers. Even in the writ petition, length of service has not been denied. However, it was asserted before labour Court as well as in the writ petitions that the workmen were engaged from time to time in view of availability of work as casual labours on day to day basis.

(3.) The main argument raised before the labour Court as well as this Court was that Social Forestry Division or Forest Department of State of U.P. is not an Industry. In this regard learned standing counsel has strongly placed reliance upon Supreme Court authority State of Gujarat v. P.N. Parmar, 2001 9 SCC 713 . This authority is by two judges. In the said authority, a three judge authority of the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest v. Jagannath M. Kondhare, 1996 2 SCC 293 was distinguished. However, thereafter another Bench of the Supreme Court found that both the authorities had expressed divergent views and both were based upon interpretation of Constitutional Bench authority of the Supreme Court Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa (seven Judges Constitutional Bench Authorities), 1978 2 SCC 213. Accordingly, the matter was referred to five judges Constitutional Bench. The five judges Constitutional Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench. The reference order is State of U.P. v. Jaibir Singh, 2005 5 SCC 1. The matter was referred to larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. Rajappa .