Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner-appellant-State is aggrieved against the judgment dated 29.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the State's writ petition to challenge the award dated 21.12.2000 (Annex.5) was dismissed after observing that under writ jurisdiction, the court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the labour court.
(3.) Learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that several grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge, but none of them have been considered and decided. It is submitted that the respondent-employee was engaged in a project and, therefore, he cannot take shelter under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). It is also submitted that the appellant-forest department is not the industry as defined under the Act of 1947, therefore also, the respondent-employee cannot take shelter under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Learned Addl. Advocate General also relied upon the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Pratam Singh Nar Singh Parmar reported in (2001) 9 SCC 713 wherein it has been held that ordinarily the Government department cannot be treated to be an industry.;