JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the Department of Forest, State of Rajasthan for assailing the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the award dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur while adjudicating the dispute referred by the State Government and holding the termination of the respondent workman Shri Lala Ram Nama by the employer to be illegal, and directing him to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of back wages from 30.12.1995, was affirmed and the writ petition was rejected.

3. Shri Sandeep Shah, learned AAG assisted by Shri Abhimanyu Singh, vehemently and fervently urges that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the learned Single Judge, failed to consider the important aspect of the case that the Forest Department of the State Government is not covered within the definition of an ‘Industry’. He further submits that the respondent workman was employed on purely contractual basis in the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and by virtue of the notification dated 29.08.1991 issued by the State Government, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been excluded for the workmen employed in the said Scheme. He further submits that the respondent workman failed to make out a case that any person junior to him was reinstated in service or that his services were regularised. Shri Shah further submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded beyond the scope of the reference notification while adjudicating the dispute. He thus urges that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court is liable to be struck down.

4. Per contra, Shri M.M. Dhera, learned counsel representing the respondent workman, vehemently and fervently opposes the submissions advanced by Shri Shah. He urges that the learned Labour Court, conducted a thorough inquiry and proceeded to hold that the respondent was employed as a workman with the petitioner Forest Department within the meaning of the Workmen Compensation Act. It was an admitted position that before the learned Labour Court that before terminating services of the respondent workman, no seniority list was prepared and the principle of ‘Last Come First Go’ was not followed. Shri Bheema Ram person junior to the respondent workman was retained and was even regularised in service and thus, retrenchment of the respondent workman was rightly held to be in violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules 77 and 78 thereof. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition and affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

6. The first and foremost contention of Shri Shah for assailing the impugned Judgment was that the aspect of Forest Department not being covered under the scope and definition of ‘Industry’ was not considered by the learned Single Bench. In this regard upon a careful perusal of the impugned Judgment dated 10.08.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge, we find that no such contention was at all advanced before the learned Single Bench on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. On a deeper probe into the pleadings of the parties before the Labour Court, it is clear that a vague aspersion was made on behalf of the appellant that the Forest Department was not covered within the definition of an ‘Industry’ but no evidence was led in support of this assertion.

Later on, this stance was changed and it was pleaded that as the respondent workman was employed under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were explicitly excluded in view of the notification dated 29.08.1991 issued by the State Government.

On this aspect, it may be noted here that after the workman had been retrenched in the year