ORDER :

Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant against award dated 14.09.2012 passed by Labour Court, Bhilwara has been dismissed.

2. The respondent - workman raised dispute and the appropriate Government referred the dispute on 28.11.2006 to the Labour Court, Bhilwara whether action of the Management of District Opium Officer, Narcotics Department, Bhilwara is legal and justified, if not, to what relief is the workman entitled to.

3. The workman filed statement of claim, which was contested by the petitioner-appellant, after evidence was led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of workman's services were in violation of the provision of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 2011 ('the Act'), inasmuch as, neither he was given notice nor the compensation in lieu of notice before retrenchment and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge by his impugned order came to the conclusion that the Labour Court has given a clear-cut finding that termination of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act, which finding does not require any interference and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the issue was raised before the Labour Court that the appellant did not fall within the definition of 'Industry' as indicated in Section 2 (j) of the Act and as such, the labour dispute was not maintainable against it before the Labour Court, which was decided by the Labour Court relying on judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. R. Rajappa & Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 548 , which determination is incorrect.

7. Further submissions were made that no case of violation of provisions of Section 25 -F was made out before the Labour Court, however, the award impugned was passed, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the award as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the claim made by the respondent deserves to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Workman made submissions that the plea about the employer being not an Industry, though was raised before the Labour Court, which has rightly decided the issue, the said plea was abandoned before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, now it is not open for the appellant to raise the issue all over again.

9. Further submissions have been made that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact pertaining to violation of provisions of Section 25 -F, the petitioner - appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said finding so as to require interference by this Court and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. So far as the plea raised regarding the appellant-petitioner being not an Industry within the parameters of Section 2 (j) of the Act, the Labour Court after considering the material available on record, recorded a categorical finding about the petitioner being an Industry within the parameters of the provisions with reference to the judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra).

12. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reveals that before him no plea wa