Forest Department work and prolonged casual employment can attract industrial law scrutiny, unfair labour practice findings, and regularisation.

The text applies the dominant nature test under the Industrial Disputes Act to hold that a Forest Department scheme with recreational and educational objectives was not an inalienable sovereign function and remained within industrial law scrutiny. It further construes item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra labour law to infer unfair labour practice where workmen are kept as casuals for years to deny permanent status and benefits. On that footing, long and continuous service supported permanency and regularisation, and the Industrial Court's relief was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Forest Department scheme was an industry or part of the State's sovereign functions; (ii) whether keeping workmen as casuals for years amounted to unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV; (iii) whether the relief of permanency and regularisation granted by the Industrial Court required interference.

Issue (i): whether the Forest Department scheme was an industry or part of the State's sovereign functions

Analysis: The definition of industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was applied on the basis of the dominant nature test. Sovereign functions were treated as those functions strictly understood as inalienable State functions. The scheme in question was found to be directed not merely to preservation work but also to recreational and educational objectives and could be undertaken by a non-State agency. It was therefore not an inescapable or inalienable sovereign function.

Conclusion: The Forest Department scheme was not excluded as a sovereign function and fell within the reach of the State Act.

Issue (ii): whether keeping workmen as casuals for years amounted to unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV

Analysis: Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was construed purposively to prevent employers from continuing employees as badlis, casuals or temporaries for long periods with the object of denying permanent status and privileges. The Court held that such object may be inferred from the facts where workmen are retained as casuals for years, and on the record the long and continuous employment of the respondents supported that inference.

Conclusion: The appellants were guilty of unfair labour practice.

Issue (iii): whether the relief of permanency and regularisation granted by the Industrial Court required interference

Analysis: The request to deny regularisation on the ground of financial burden and reliance on welfare scheme employment was rejected. The Court distinguished schemes meant only for transient relief and held that the work in question had a permanent character. Continuity of service for several years justified regularisation, and the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 did not exclude the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Conclusion: The relief of permanency and regularisation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in full, and the Industrial Court's directions were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Activities of the State that are not strictly inalienable sovereign functions remain within industrial law scrutiny, and long continuation of workmen as casuals may justify an inference of unfair labour practice and support regularisation.

---