JUDGMENT :

G.B. Shah, J.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5441 of 2001, the appellant-State has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the grounds stated in the memo of the Appeal.

2. We have heard Mr N.J. Shah, learned AGP for the appellant and Mr S. C. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as part-time Typist with the appellant's office i.e. office of the Deputy Collector at Rajula, District Amreli since 16.5.1992. On completion of 240 days, the respondent had made a representation on 29.6.1999 for a post of full time Gujarati Typist through Union. On 3.7.1999 the respondent was discharged from service of the appellant without being served with any notice or notice pay. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Amreli for adjudication. The Labour Court, Amreli, after hearing the parties, passed the award dated 12.1.2001 in Reference (LCA) No.15 of 2000 and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 75% back wages. The appellant has challenged the said award before the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No.5441 of 2001 and the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition and the award of the Labour Court insofar as the direction of reinstatement with continuity of service of the respondent was confirmed and granting of 75% back wages was quashed and set aside. This order is under challenge in this Appeal.

3. Learned AGP Mr N.J. Shah has mainly drawn our attention to the award dated 12.01.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli and submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider rather has not dealt with the important aspects/issues of the case that whether the appellant-original respondent i.e. the Collector's office can be said to be an industry' under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). The learned AGP has also submitted that before the learned Single Judge, this issue was raised elaborately that the award dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) 15 of 2000 deserves to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that the appellant-State authority is not an "Industry" under the provisions of the Act. Learned AGP has then submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the office of the Collector is an "industry" and looking to the functions of the department of the Collector's office, the functions performed by the department are of public importance and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is an "industry". He has, further submitted that against the claim statement filed by the respondent, the appellant has filed written statement on 14.9.2000 wherein it had been specifically contended in para 3 that the appellant is not an "industry" and before lodging any proceedings against the appellant, the respondent is required to issue notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Lastly, learned APP has submitted that without entering into the merits of the case on he above referred submissions, this Letters Patent Appeal is required to be allowed as it is the fact that the appellant is not an "industry" and as such on this important issue, the Labour Court Judge has remained silent and not touched at all and decided the Reference leaving that issue aside and also ignoring the same and stretching the issue beyond its limitation.

3.1. In support of his arguments, the learned AGP has placed reliance on the decision in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others v. State of Bihar and others AIR 1997 SC 3657 wherein in para 3 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under:

"...Every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When the appointments are r