- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This bunch of 18 writ petitions is a corollary to an industrial dispute, raised by the Kanpur Prani Udyan Karmchari Sangh in respect of eighteen workmen, who are the respondent No. 3 in each of the eighteen writ petitions. Since these writ petitions raise common question of law and facts, and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal in each of these cases are similar, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE Kanpur Praci Udyan, for short Udyan is an establishment of the Forest Department of the State of U. P. THE respondent No. 3 in each of these petitions are admittedly the employees of the Udyan, all of whom, except respondents Jagender Gaur in Writ Petition No. 23373 of 1992 who is a Dakia, Rameshwar Prasad in Writ Petition No. 30581 of 1992 Lab Assistant, Ram Naresh in Writ Petition No. 30580 of 1992, Bhagwan Das in Writ Petition No. 30582 of i992, Mahesh in Writ Petition No. 30588 of 1992, Shyam Babu in Writ Petition No. 30590 of 1992, all sweepers, Parsu Ram in Writ Petition No. 30576 of 1992, carpenter, Munshi Lai, fodder cutter, Rameshwar, food distributor, Saueb Lal, cooker in writ petition No. 30587 of 1992, are chaukidars on daily wages, for looking after the Udyan, its inmates and properties. THEy were being paid a fixed emolument of Rs. 450 per month and were thus deprived of the monthly emoluments of similarly placed regular employees in the pay-scale of Rs, 305-450 like dearness allowance, house allowance, city allowance medical allowance etc , despite the fact that they were doing the same work and discharging the same duties as these regular employees. THEir demand for equal wages for equal work raised an industrial disputes to the effect as to whether the action of the employers in denying the time-scale of Rs. 305-450 to the respondents is valid and legal, and if not, to what amount as wages they were entitled, which was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Tribunal both sides presented their written statements and evidence, on a consideration whereof the Tribunal held the respondents-workmen to be entitled to the minimum wages in the pay- scale of Rs. 305-450 on the principle of equal pay for equal work w. e. f. 1-2-1990, which will include D. A. and other allowances, if any, admissible to the regularly employed workmen. On behalf of the State of U. P. the award of the Tribunal has been challenge mainly on two grounds. Firstly that the respondents employees of the Udyan, which is a part of the Forest Department, are not workmen, and secondly the Tribunal erred in treating them regularly appointed employees and allowing wages accordingly.
(3.) ON hearing Shri S. K. Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. , Shri K. P. Agrawal and Shri B. N. Singh learned coun sel for the respondents workmen, in the opinion of this Court, none of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner State have any substance. That the Udyan is an industry and the respondent No. 3 in each of these petitions are workmen covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is concluded by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests and another v. Jagannath Maruti Kendhare, reported in 1996 Lab 1c 967. In the said case also relating to the Forest Department, while executing a scheme framed as per Government resolu tion for creation of a park under bio-aesthetic development for the benefit of urban population, the Pune Forest Divisions function was held not to be a part of sovereign function of the State, and the Forest Department qua the scheme was held to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;