( 1 ) HEARD learned AGP Ms. Archana Raval for Petitioner and Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for Respondent workman. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of india, Petitioner has challenged award made by labour Court, Baroda in Reference No. 461 of 1990 dated October 28, 2005, wherein Labour court has partly allowed reference. Labour court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages for intervening period. Labour Court also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000. 00.

( 2 ) LEARNED AGP Ms. Raval submitted that the Agricultural Department is not an industry within meaning of Section 2 (j) of the ID Act, 1947. She also pointed out about the conditions of service of the Respondent workman. She also raised contention that the Respondent was appointed a part time employee and he was being paid from the contingent fund. She also contended that the burden was upon the respondent to prove as to whether the department is covered by the definition of industry or not. She also submits that the government Resolution dated October 17, 1988 is not applicable to the workman. She also contended that it is