( 1 ) THESE four petitions raising the following questions referred by two learned Single Judges are listed before us alongwith other cognate matters which are tagged with them. Questions Referred:

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Applications No. 4715 of 2003 and 4435 of 2001, the learned Single Judge, (H. K. Rathod, J.), by his order dated 4-12-2003, formulated six questions for referring them to the Larger Bench in the following terms;" (1) Whether the Forest Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not ? (2) What is the correct law between the two different views/ratios laid down by two different Division Bench of this Court in case of PWD EMPLOYEES UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 1987[2] GLR 1070 wherein the Irrigation Department of the State is held to be an industry for the purpose of I. D. Act and decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of SHANKERJI CHELAJI THAKOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2000 [1] GLH 482 and the recent decision in case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. D. B. THAKORE reported in 2003[2] GLH 420, wherein the Irrigation Department is not held to be an industry for the purpose of I. D. Act, 1947; and therefore, which decision is binding to this Court? (3) If the party to the proceedings, for the first time, raised the contention that Irrigation Department or Forest Department is not an industry, before this Court without raising the same question before the Labour Court or the Industrial tribunal concerned, whether such question can be said to be a pure question of law or the same can be said to be a mixed question of law and facts; and Whether such contention can be permitted to be raised before this Court when it was not raised before the lower court? (4) Whether the view taken by this Court [coram: H. K. Rathod, J. ] as Single Judge in case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANIBEN VIRAJI reported in 2003[2] GLH 368 can be said to be a correct law or not? (5) The decision making reference made by this Court [coram : Justice K. M. Mehta, J. ] referring the issue to the Division Bench of this Court to decide "whether Forest Department of the State is an industry or not?" may also be taken up and considered for decision by the larger Bench of this Court? (6) When the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [state OF KARNATAKA] v. K. SOMASETTY relied upon by the Division Benches of this Court in last two decisions in case of SHANKERJI CHELAJI THAKOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2000[1] GLR 482 and the recent decision in case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. D. B. THAKORE reported in 2003[2] glh 420, wherein the Irrigation Department is not held to be an industry for the purpose of I. D. Act, 1947; the Apex Court by three Honble Judges Bench in case of GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM reported in 1998 [78] FLR 143 has taken a view regarding telecommunication department being not an industry, was specifically overruled, in that circumstances, whether above referred last two decisions of the divisions benches of this Court on the issue, is binding decision or not?"

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Applications Nos. 8259 of 1996 and 2566 of 1997, the learned Single Judge had formulated three questions on 3-7-2001 in the following terms for being placed before a Division Bench :" (1) Which judgement of the Honble Supreme Court namely in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and another v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhara and others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 293 (three bench judgement) or a judgement of the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Prathamsinh Narsinh Parmar (supra) decided on 31/1/2001 in Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 1994 lay down a correct law and binding to this court? (2) Whether Forest Department of the "state" is an industry or not? (3) Whether the petitioners or similarly situated employees of the Forest Department are entitled for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988?"3. 1 thou