JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.

( 1 ) TWO questions in the main need our determination in this batch of appeals which are by the Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Maharashtra. The first and foremost question is whether Forest Department of the State Government is an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Central Act), which definition has been adopted by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the State Act ). We shall have then to address ourselves to the question whether in the cases at hand the employer, namely the State Government, had indulged in unfair labour practice visualised by item 6 of Schedule IV of the State Act, as alleged by the respondents before the Industrial Court, Pune/ahmednagar. If these questions would be answered in affirmative, we would be required to consider without the directions given by the aforesaid Industrial Courts need our interference.

( 2 ) BEFORE applying our mind to the first question, it would be apposite to mention that this point had not been before the Industrial Court and it is because of this that the High Court, on being approached against the award of the Industrial Court, did allow this point to be agitated before it. This Court, however, fell, in view of the importance of the question, that the contention may be gone into as would appear from the order passed on 6-11-1992. But as a contention was dispute is fairly old and if the matter were to be remanded to Industrial Court, the workmen would suffer second round of litigation causing hardship to them, a direction was given to the counsel for the appellants to place the factual data, on record of this Court itself, on the basis of which it was contended that the Forest Department was not an industry. It was so done.

( 3 ) SHRI Dholakia, appearing for the appellants, first urged, and persistently, that to decide this question we may not be guided by what was held in this regard by a 7- Judge Bench of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. R. Rajappa (1978) 3 SCR 207 : (AIR 1978 SC 548 ). According to the learned counsel this decision needs reconsideration and we should so order. As this was not the stand of the appellants even when the order of 6-11-1992 was passed we did not permit Shri Dholakia to address us on the need of reconsidering the ratio of the aforesaid decision.

( 4 ) WE, therefore, propose to examine the first question on the touch stone of what was held by this Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (AIR 1978 SC 548 ). A perusal of that judgment shows that the main judgment was written by Krishna Iyer J. (on behalf of self, Bhagwati and Desai, JJ. as would appear from the reporting of this judgment in AIR 1978 SC 548), Beg, CJ endorsed the opinion and conclusions of Krishna Iyer, J. in a concurrent judgment giving his own reasons. Though Tulzapurkar, J. had stated in the order passed on the day the judgment was delivered ( 21/02/1978) that reasons for concurrence and divergence if any would be given later, no such reasons were given. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) put on record his reasons on 7/04/1978 by which date he had become Chief Justice, Jaswant Singh, J. also did the same.

( 5 ) THE aforesaid shows that the conclusions reached by Krishna Iyer, J. had been endorsed fully by two other learned Judges and Beg, CJ did the same but for different reasons. We would, therefore, confine our attention to the conclusions reached by Krishna Iyer, J. which appear (1978) 3 SCR 2077 ) of the Report. The one which is relevant for our purpose is what finds place under serial titled IV. "the dominant nature test", which was spelt out as below :" (A) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, other not, involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not workmen as in the University of Delhi Case (AIR 1963 SC 1873) or some departments are not produ