ORDER :

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioners-the Department of Forest in this writ petition have called in question the award of the Labour Court dated 27.08.2013 passed in reference No. 149/2003, directing reinstatement of the Workmen into service with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

2. Parties will be referred as the 'Department' (petitioners) and the Workmen (respondents) for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Sri. R. Srinivasa gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, Sri. V.R. Datar, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

4. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the Workmen joined the Department as Coolie and Watermen respectively. All three Workmen joined the Department in the year 1984 and were all terminated in the month of March of 2001. The appropriate government referred the dispute to the Labour Court which came to be numbered as reference No. 149/2003 to adjudicate several issues. The points of reference were as follows :

The first point of reference was, whether the Department would come within the meaning of 'Industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). The Labour Court holding the first issue against the Department, further held that the Workmen were terminated illegally and consequently passed an award which reads as follows :

"AWARD

Petition filed by the First Party Workmen U/Sec. 10 (4-A) of Industrial Dispute Act is hereby allowed in part.

The denial of employment to First Party workmen by Second Party is held illegal.

The Second Party is hereby directed to reinstate the First Party workmen into service to the same post last held by them with continuity of service and 50% of back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, within 2 months from the date this Award becomes enforceable.

Send copy of the award to Government for publication U/Section 17 of I.D. Act."

The Department has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the Department of Forest is not an 'Industry' and if it is not an 'Industry', it would not come within the purview of the said Act and would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The issue whether the Department of Forest is an 'Industry' or otherwise is no longer res integra IN view of the judgments of the Apex Court as followed by a Co Ordinate Bench of this Court has follows:

a. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND ANR. VS. RAJU in W.P. Nos. 15494/2006 AND CONNECTED MATTERS. (D.D. ON 02.03.2012), has held as follows :

3. It is the contention of learned Government Advocate that Labour Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that "Forest Department" is a industry as defined under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contends that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar reported in 2001 (9) SCC 713 has held that "Forest Department" is not an industry and as such provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted and contends that dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. Supporting the said contention of learned Government Advocate, Sri. B.J. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P. 34659/2011 would elaborate his submission by contending that very same petitioners were before this court in W.P. 35537/2004 and this court has taken a view by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratamsingh's case by holding petitioner is not a industry as defined under Industrial Disputes Act, and as such he contends that present writ petition deserves to be allowed. He would also contend that this court has consistently held that "Forest Department" is not an industry and in support of his submission he has relied upon the unreported Judgments of this Court passed in W.P. 11532/2011 disposed of on 11.11.2011. Accordingly prays for allowing of writ petition.

4. Pe