M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.C. Walimbe, the learned AGP for the appellants.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 15th December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 7580 of 2002 instituted by the appellants. In Writ Petition No. 7580 of 2002, the challenge was to the common order dated 26th February 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 96 to 101 of 1997. The Industrial Court, Pune, in its common order dated 26th February 1999 had held that the appellants had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) and further directed the appellants to regularise the services of the respondent – workman.

3. Mr. Walimbe, at the outset, submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2010 contains no independent reasons and therefore, the same warrants interference. In the alternate and without prejudice, Mr. Walimbe submits that if the reasons set out in the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010, by which, the learned Single Judge had dismissed Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2002 and connected matters, are to be taken as reasons in the impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2010, even then, the same warrants interference on the grounds which follow.

4. Mr. Walimbe submits that the Forest Department discharges sovereign functions and therefore, the Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge committed jurisdictional error in proceeding on the basis that the Forest Department constitutes 'industry' under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the two Courts erred in relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chief Conservator of Forests and anr. vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare – 1996 (I) CLR 680, which decision, had already been distinguished and explained by the Apex Court itself in case of State of Gujarat vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar – 2001 (1) CLR 968.

5. Mr. Walimbe also submitted that the view taken by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge may not be consistent with the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors v/s. Umadevi and ors. - (2006) 4 SCC 1. Mr. Walimbe submits that on this ground as well the impugned judgment and order warrants interference.

6. We have carefully considered the grounds raised by Mr.Walimbe in support of this appeal. We have also perused the material on record and the orders made by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge in the matter. For reasons indicated hereafter, we see no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

7. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2010, it is quite clear that the learned advocates for the parties, i.e., the appellants and the respondent – workmen specifically agreed that the facts involved in the batch of the writ petitions which were disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2010 were the same as in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2002 and connected matters. The learned Single Judge, after recording this agreement between the learned counsel for the parties proceeded to dispose of Writ Petition No. 7580 of 2002 in terms of the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2002 and connected matters. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the ground that the impugned judgment and order contains no 'independent' reasons. It is very obvious that Writ Petition No. 7580 of 2002 and connected matters came to be dismissed on the basis of the reasoning in the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2002 and connected matters.

8. Further, it is necessary to note that the appellants had in fact challenged the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010 p