What is the central question in this case?

Whether the State’s Social Forestry Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

How did the Supreme Court view sovereign functions?

Sovereign functions include justice, law enforcement, defense, and lawmaking. These are outside the ID Act’s “industry” definition.

Did the Court treat social forestry as commercial?

No. The Court saw social forestry as welfare-oriented and governmental, not a market service for consumers.

What about Bangalore Water Supply?

The Court acknowledged it as the binding standard but hinted that any reconsideration should be by a larger Bench.

What was directed finally?

The matter of possible reconsideration of principles was placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate larger Bench orders.

State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

Is the Social Forestry Department an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Citation: (2005) 5 SCC 1 Supreme Court Labour / Public Welfare ~7 min read India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 23 Oct 2025 Keywords: Section 2(j), industry, social forestry, sovereign functions

Hero image for State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh case explainer

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court discussed whether the State’s Social Forestry Department fits the ID Act’s word “industry”.

The Court viewed social forestry as a welfare and environmental function of the State. Such sovereign-type work is outside the “industry” idea in Section 2(j). Any larger rethink of the broad test in Bangalore Water Supply was left to a bigger Bench.

Issues

Does Social Forestry fall within “industry” under Section 2(j) ID Act?
Should conflicting views in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Pratamsingh Parmar be revisited in light of Bangalore Water Supply?

Rules

Section 2(j) (ID Act): “Industry” is organised cooperation of employer and employees to provide goods/services for human wants or needs.

Sovereign functions (justice, policing, defense, lawmaking) are excluded. Where a unit has mixed tasks, use the dominant nature test.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline: employment in Social Forestry, termination, Labour Court and High Court decisions, Supreme Court proceedings

Employment: Jai Bir Singh worked in the State’s Social Forestry Department.

Termination: He was removed allegedly without due process or inquiry.

Labour Court: Treated Social Forestry as an “industry” and granted relief.

High Court: Upheld Labour Court, relying on Bangalore Water Supply’s broad test.

Supreme Court: State appealed; Court examined “industry” and sovereign function boundaries.

Outcome: Social forestry seen as welfare/governmental; referral to larger Bench kept open via the CJI.

Arguments

Appellant: State of UP

Social forestry advances environmental welfare and public policy.
Such activity is governmental, not market-facing or commercial.
Hence, Section 2(j) “industry” should not apply.

Respondent: Jai Bir Singh

There is organised employer–employee work delivering services.
Therefore, the department fits the broad test from Bangalore Water Supply.
Termination without due process violates industrial law protections.

Judgment

The Supreme Court treated social forestry as primarily governmental and welfare-driven, not commercial.

It declined to immediately refer all issues to a larger Bench, but asked the Chief Justice of India to consider such reference. It stressed that core sovereign functions are outside “industry.”

Judgment visual representing Supreme Court’s view on social forestry and industry definition

Ratio Decidendi

Activities that mainly serve sovereign or welfare aims (like environmental protection) are outside “industry.” The dominant nature of social forestry is welfare, not commerce.

Why It Matters

Helps draw a line between welfare/sovereign work and market services.
Shows cautious use of Bangalore Water Supply when the State acts for public good.
Guides disputes from departments doing environmental or social schemes.

Key Takeaways

“Industry” requires a consumer/service focus; welfare focus points away.
Sovereign functions are narrow but real exclusions under the ID Act.
Use the dominant nature test for mixed-activity departments.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “FOREST = FOR WELFARE”

Purpose: Public welfare or market service?
Pattern: Organised work—what is it aimed at?
Predominance: Welfare dominates → not “industry.”

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is Social Forestry an “industry”?	Section 2(j) + sovereign exclusion + dominant nature test.	Primary aim is environmental welfare, not consumer service.	Not an “industry.”
Effect on termination disputes?	ID Act protections apply only if unit is an “industry.”	If department is non-industrial, industrial remedies may not lie.	Relief depends on correct classification.

Glossary

Industry (ID Act): Organised employer–employee activity to provide goods/services for people’s needs.
Sovereign Functions: Core State tasks like justice, policing, defense, and lawmaking.
Dominant Nature Test: When activities are mixed, the main character of the unit decides its tag.

FAQs

Social forestry is mainly welfare/governmental. That points away from “industry” under Section 2(j).

No. Government units offering market-style services can be “industries.” Welfare-dominant units may not be.

The Court flagged the conflict and left a possible reconsideration to a larger Bench via the CJI.

Start with Section 2(j) + sovereign exclusion, apply the dominant nature test to social forestry, then conclude: welfare focus → not industry.

Publication Details

CASE_TITLE: State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh; Section 2(j); Industrial Disputes Act; industry; social forestry; sovereign functions; dominant nature test
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Labour Court; High Court; Bangalore Water Supply; environmental welfare; Article 136; CJI reference