[2025:RJ-JP:11886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 950/2010 Ramswaroop Mali Son of Kalyan Mali, Resident of Village Raghunathpura, Post Gudha Chandraji, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Samajik Vaniki, Sawai Madhopur (Raj,) 2. The Labour Court, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Case No. LCR 269/1993 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner against his termination order dated 16.04.1992 has been rejected on the ground that the Department of Forest does not fall within the definition of “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Versus Judge Labour Court Bharatpur & Others reported in [2025:RJ-JP:11886] (2 of 3) [CW-950/2010] 2008 WLC 681 wherein it has been held that the Department of Forest falls within the definition of “Industry” in terms of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the matter be remitted to the Labour Court for adjudication on its merits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the nature of work discharged by the workman is required to be seen by the Labour Court at the time of adjudication of the dispute. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal (supra) where it has been observed that the Department of Forest falls within the definition of “Industry” in terms of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, this Court deems it just and proper to remit the matter to the Labour Court for deciding the same on its merits. 6. As a consequence thereof, the impugned award dated 30.09.2005 stands quashed and set-aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for its adjudication on its merits, looking to the nature of work discharged by the petitioner-workman. The parties are directed to appear before Labour Court on 15.04.2025. It is expected from the Labour Court to decide the dispute between the parties [2025:RJ-JP:11886] (3 of 3) [CW-950/2010] expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of 18 months from the date of their appearance before the Labour Court. 7. All applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /106