2006 (12) TMI 513 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Definition of 'Factory' and 'Manufacturing Process' under the Factories Act, 1948.
3. Non-maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies.
4. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The primary question was whether the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are applicable to the appellant-Corporation. The High Court observed that the appropriate Government had framed the Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976, making Section 25N applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court held that the Forest Corporation is an industrial establishment within the definition of Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act, and since the retrenchment was made without complying with Section 25N, the retrenchment order was void. The Supreme Court upheld this view, confirming that non-compliance with Section 25N renders the retrenchment order illegal and non est.

2. Definition of 'Factory' and 'Manufacturing Process' under the Factories Act, 1948:
The appellant-Corporation argued that it does not fall within the definition of a factory as no manufacturing process is carried out. However, the High Court held that the activities of cutting trees and converting them into logs constitute a manufacturing process under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the process of cutting by axe and changing the shape by saw falls within the definition of 'making' and 'altering' under the Factories Act. The Court cited several judgments to support the view that the activities carried out by the Corporation meet the requirements of a manufacturing process, thus making it an industrial establishment under Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Non-maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies:
The appellant-Corporation contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the respondents had not availed the alternative remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court observed that many of the workmen had not approached the Tribunal and directly filed writ petitions in the High Court. The Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petitions without the workmen first availing the alternative remedies. The Court emphasized that writ petitions under Article 226 should not be entertained when statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances are made out.

4. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition:
The appellant-Corporation argued that the writ petitions were filed after a delay of 8-10 years and should have been dismissed on the grounds of laches. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petitions filed after such a long delay. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting that the procedural laws like estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence are applicable to industrial proceedings and that the High Court should not deviate from the general view of requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are applicable to the appellant-Corporation, and non-compliance with these provisions makes the retrenchment orders illegal. The Court also confirmed that the appellant-Corporation is an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Court dismissed the writ petitions of those workmen who had not availed the alternative remedies and had filed the petitions after a significant delay. The appeals of the Corporation were partly allowed, and the workmen who had approached the Tribunal were granted relief of reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service.