( 1 ) HEARD Mr. M. G. Doshit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Pandit, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 - workman as well as Mr. H. D. Dave, learned AGP for respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award dated 28th January, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Navsari in Reference [lcn] No. 28/ 1985 wherein, the labour court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 % backwages of interim period. Learned advocate Mr. Doshit on behalf of the petitioner has mainly raised two contentions before this Court. The first contention is the Panchayat is sovereign function of the State and therefore, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the petitioner. The second contention is that the respondent workman has an alternative effective statutory remedy of an Appeal available under the provisions of Section 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 1972 but the workman has not availed such remedy and therefore, the Reference is bad and the Labour Court has committed gross error in passing such award which is without jurisdiction. Mr. Doshit, learned advocate has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court, wherein the Forest Department has not been considered as an industry but the function of the Forest Department is considered to be sovereign of the State.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Pandit on behalf of the respondent workman has submitted that initially the respondent workman was working in Health Department with the District Panchayat Valsad but later on when the Reference was raised, he was working with the Navsari District Panchayat. Mr. Pandit, learned advocate has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nagpur Corporation vs. Its Employees reported in AIR 1960 SC 675, wherein the Apex Court has held that Department of Panchayat is an industry and the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are applicable to the Panchayat and therefore, Mr. Pandit submits that even for the Health Department of the District Panchayat, the provisions of the I. D. Act would be applicable and therefore, the award passed by the labour court, impugned in this petition is just and proper and there requires no interference by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) I have considered submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. Before the Labour Court, the respondent workman has filed statement of claim, wherein it was mentioned that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner with effect from 2/01/1981 and performing his duties as Vaccinator in Family Planning and Malaria department. Thereafter, his services were terminated on 1/12/1983 but at the time of terminating services of the respondent, the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no notice as given and no pay was given and therefore, termination order is bad and illegal. The workman has stated that during the interim period, he remained unemployed and therefore, he made prayer before labour court that termination order is required to be set aside and he may be reinstated with full backwages. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed written statement vide Exh. 5. The respondent workman has produced certain documents at Exh. 8 and affidavit of respondent workman in support of the statement of claim also filed by the respondent workman. Initially, after affidavit of the respondent workman vide Exh. 10, vide the labour court has passed order below Exh. 11 which was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Special Civil Application No. 3706 / 1986, wherein this Court has remanded the matter back to the labour court concerned. Thereafter, again the labour court has issued notices to the parties and the petitioner had appeared before the labour court. Thereafter, vide Exh. 15 further reply has been filed by the