Judgment

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - Leave granted.

2. A bunch of 38 appeals were filed by State of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation against the judgment and order dated 21 - 8 - 2003 by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2001. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent workmen against the award dated 24 - 12 - 1997 of the Labour Court, Dehradun in Litigation Case No. 117 of 2006 (with 29 other cases).

Dates and events

3. U.P. Forest Corporation had engaged daily - wage workers for the purpose of measurement of wood, protection of timber at the logging site and depots of the Corporation. The said engagement of workers was as per requirement. V.P. Forest Corporation was the predecessor of the appellant Corporation.

4. Writ Petition No. 21 of 1993 (Van Nigam Kannachari Kalyan Sangh v. a State of U.P.) was decided by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 12 - 7 - 1994 wherein the High Court, inter alia, held as under:

"(iii) In case of reduction of work or shortfall in the work the authorities of the Forest Corporation would make an endeavour to adjust them in alternative work available in the particular region in which they b are working or in any other region where work is available before giving them seasonal leave terminating their services.

(iv) If in that particular region or any other region such alternative work is not available on account of reduction in work or shortfall in work, the authorities of the Corporation may retrench the services of field staff but only in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 - N of C the V.P. Industrial Disputes Act."

5. The predecessor Corporation of the appellant made its best endeavour to accommodate the surplus daily - rate workers but the alternative work was not available since the work of the Corporation had tapered down as felling of the trees had been banned in the forest under the policy of the Government d and in these circumstances the predecessor of the appellant was compelled to reduce the work force of daily - wage workers. As there was no work the services of the respondent workers were retrenched along with several others by the V.P. Forest Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the V.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. The services of the respondent were retrenched by orders dated 30 - 5 - 1995 and 31 - 5 - 1995 after giving one months wage in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation in compliance with Section 6 - N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also such payments were received by the respondents without any protest.

7. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondents, and the Labour Court, Dehradun in the award held that the retrenchment order was legal and valid as the provisions of Section 6 - N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were fully complied with. Further, it held that the provisions of Section 25 - N of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted as the Forest Corporation is not an industrial establishment as defined in Section 25 - L of Chapter V - B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Aggrieved by the award dated 24 - 12 - 1997, Jabar Singh and others filed Writ Petition No. 8351 of 1999. Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2001 along with other writ petitions was allowed by the High Court on 21 - 8 - 2003 with the direction that the writ petitioners shall be put back on duty and shall be paid salary/wages.

9. The question which fell for determination was whether the provisions of Section 25 - N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted or not and whether for non - compliance with the conditions contained in Section 25 - N, retrenchment order as well as award are illegal and non est.

10. The High Court observed that the appropriate Government by framing the rules known as the Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976 have made Section 25 - N applicable in relation to industrial establishment in the State of U.P.

11. In view of the above the qu