In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1-Civil Writ Petition No.1903/2009
Ramjit Versus Judge, Lab. Court Bharatpur & Ors
2-Civil Writ Petition No.11246/2008
Shri Nath Singh Versus Judge, Lab. Court Bharatpur & Ors
3-Civil Writ Petition No.11298/2008
Madhav Singh Versus Judge, Lab. Court Bharatpur & Ors
Date of Order ::: 30/11/09
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. JP Sharma, for petitioners
Dr. MS Kachhawa, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondent-State
Respondents-2 & 3 are represented by their Government Counsel and service of notice upon respondent-1 being formal party is dispensed with. At joint request, matter has been finally heard at admission stage.
Since these petitions involve identical controversy, hence are being decided by present order. These writ petitions have been filed against the Award dt.01/10/2005 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur, declining to answer Reference made by appropriate Government (LCR-130/94-Ramjit Vs. DFO Bharatpur; LCR-81/95-Shrinath Singh Vs. DFO Bharatpur; & LCR-386/95-Madhav Singh Vs. DFO, Bharatpur) while holding that Department of Forest is not an Industry U/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) and accordingly claim application itself has been rejected.
Counsel for petitioners submits that in the absence of objection having been raised by respondent Department in their written statement before Labour Court, the petitioner (workman) was precluded from placing material on record to justify that nature of work being undertaken by his employer (department) where he was posted, is an industry covered U/s 2(j) of the Act while the Labour Court proceeded merely based on oral submission and it being a mixed question of law & facts and in the absence of supporting material on record; as such very finding recorded by learned Labour Court in its Award impugned of holding the Department of Forest being not an industry is totally perverse and deserves to be set aside. Counsel also submits that the issue raised herein has been decided by this Court in Babulal Vs. Labour Court (CWP-9132/05 & (8) cognate cases, decided vide order dt.25/01/06, wherein it has been observed ad infra:
It is true that if the dispute has been raised as to whether a particular establishment or part whereof the recruitment has been made is an ‘industry’ or not ? Primarily it is for the person concerned who claims protection under the Act, to give positive facts for coming to the conclusion that the establishment where he had worked is an ‘industry’ U/s 2(j) of the Act of 1947 and such duties undertaken are not sovereign function of the State. But, in the present case, indisputably no objection was raised by the respondents in their written statement. In the absence of which, there was no opportunity available to the workman to prove and place material for establishing the fact that nature of work undertaken is not sovereign function of the State and it is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947 and the learned Labour Court has committed an error in proceeding to examine the issue without there being factual material on record and merely on the basis of oral submissions made by the parties.
Keeping in view aforesaid aspect of there being no factual material placed on record, this Court remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for adjudication of dispute on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Per contra, Government Counsel without disputing the decision of this Court in Babulal Vs. Labour Court (supra), however, submits that an opportunity be afforded to the employer department to raise additional pleas to its written statement to the claim, as well.
In the light of what has been observed (supra) while examining the controversy by this court in Babulal Vs. Labour Court (CWP-9132/05 & (8) cognate cases, decided vide order dt. 25/01/06, these writ petitions also stand allowed and the impugned awards dt.01/10/2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR-130/94-Ramjit Vs. DFO Bharatpur; LCR-81/95-Shrinath Singh Vs. DFO Bharatpur; & LCR-386/95-Madhav Singh Vs. DFO, Bharatpur) stands set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudicating the dispute on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties who will be free to raise their additional pleas in support of their respective claim/counter claim to the dispute under Reference made by appropriate Government, if so advised. Both the parties are directed to appear before Labour Court, Bharapur on 11/01/2010. Since the dispute is old one, Labour Court is expected to decide it expeditiously.
A copy of this order be sent to the Labour Court for compliance, alongwith record, if received. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.4/1903CW09(3)Nov30-IDFrst.do