2025:UHC:1061 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 2592 of 2021 With WPMS of 81 of 2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioners were engaged as casual worker in different Divisions of Forest Department. Since, their services were terminated; therefore, they raised an industrial dispute, which has been decided against them. The award rendered against them is challenged in these writ petitions. 4. Since common question of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2592 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed. 5. In WPMS No. 2592 of 2021, petitioner has challenged the award dated 27.02.2021 passed by Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 109 of 2009. By the said award, reference, made by the State Government, was answered in the negative and it was held that Forest Department is not an ‘industry’, therefore, provisions of UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable. 2025:UHC:1061 6. Petitioner has challenged the award rendered by learned Labour Court mainly on the ground that the view taken by learned Labour Court that ‘Forest Department’ is not an ‘industry’ is contrary to the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests & another vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 293. Para 17 of the said judgment is extracted below:- “17. This being the position, we hold that the aforesaid scheme undertaken by the Forest Department cannot be regarded as a part of the sovereign function of the State, and so, it was open to the respondents to invoke the provisions of the State Act. We would say the same qua the social foresting work undertaken in Ahmednagar District. There was, therefore, no threshold bar in knocking the door of the Industrial Courts by the respondents making a grievance about adoption of unfair labour practice by the appellants.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Sardarsinh Sabursinh Bariya, reported in 2022 (172) FLR 155, wherein it was held that Forest Department is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act as the activity carried out by the Forest Department, as alleged in the petition is definitely industrial activities. 8. In the case of State of U.P. vs Charan Singh, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 150, Hon’ble Supreme Court held Fisheries Department of the State Government is covered under the definition of ‘Industry’. 2025:UHC:1061 9. In such view of the matter, since the view taken by learned Labour Court is contrary to the law of the land, therefore, on this score alone, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned awards are set aside. The matter is remanded back to Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh, after hearing the parties. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 17.02.2025 Aswal