Judgment:
A.B. Srivastava, J.
1. This bunch of 18 writ petitions is a corollary to an industrial dispute, rasied 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 Prani 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 Respondent Jogender Gaur in writ petition No. 23373 of 1992 who is a Dakia, Rameshwar Prasad in Writ Petition No. 30531 of 1992, Lab. Assistant, Ram Naresh in Writ Petition No. 30580 of 1992, Bhagwan Das in Writ peti-tion No. 30532 of 1992, Mahesh in Writ petition No. 30533 of 1992, Shyam Bahu in Writ petition No. 30590 of 1992, all sweepers, Parsu Ram in Writ Petition No. 30576 of 1992 carpenter, Munshi Lal, Fodder Cutter, Ra-meswhar Food Distributor, Saheb Lal, Cook 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 those regular employees . Their demand for equal wages for equal work raised an industrial dispute to the effect as to whether the action of the employers in denying the time-scale of Rs. 305-450 to the respondents is validand legal, and if not, to what amount as wages they were entitled, which was referred to by the State Government the Industrial Tribunal.
3. 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 minumum wages in the pay scale of Rs 305-450 on the principle of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. February 1,1990, which will include D.A. and other allowances, if any, admissible to the regularly employed workmen.
4. On behalf of the State of U.P. the award of the Tribunal has been challenged 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.
5. On hearing Shri S.K.Srivastava, learnedStanding Counsel for the State of U.P. ShriK.P. Agrawal and Shri B.N.Singh, learnedcounsel for the respondents workmen, in theopinion of this Court, none of the points raisedon behalf of the petitioner State have any substance.
6. That the Udyan is an industry and the Respondents 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 Kondhare, (1996-I-LLJ-1223). In the said case also relating to the Forest Department, while executing a scheme framed as per Government Resolution for creation of the park under bio-aesthetic development for the benefit of urban population, the Pune Forest Division's 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.
7. In the instant case also the establishment and maintenance of the Prani Udyan, a sort of Zoological Garden, cannot be regarded as inalienable function of the State and consequently the same is an industry and the provisions of the Indstrial Disputes Act, 1947 were clearly attracted. The reference to tie Industrial Tribunal thus was competent.
8. Now as to the next contention, reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Standing Counsel on a decision of a Bench comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Sudhir Narain, J. in Special Appeal No. 371 of 1995, State of U.P. v. Sheo Babu Garg decided on May 24,1996, wherein based on the decision of the Supreme court on the subject of regularisation of ad-/hoc/daily wages employees, it has been held that such regularisation could not be ordered by a Court, rather would have to be done by the concerned appointing authority on a consideration of validity of appointment, eligibility, conduct, availability of posts and funds, and although in suitable cases direction can be given to consider such regularisation, the same cannot be done by the Court or Tribunal itself. This contention however loses sight of the fact that the Tribunal in these cases has not undertaken the exercise of, nor ordered regularisation of the respondents, nor has it allowed them a running time scale, or other benefits like confirmation or promotion. It has merely acted upon the principle of equal pay for equal work, and finding that the respondents concerned are performing similar job as the regular employees, has awarded them only an amount equal to the minimum of the time scale with an addition of D. A. and other allowances. It has not put them in any running scale. The impugned awards thus are not obnoxious even on this ground. These writ petitions thus being devoid of force are liable to be dismissed.
9. All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.