ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat by an award dated 12- 7 -1998 held the retrenchment of the respondent workman as illegal and void hence directed his reinstatement. While doing so, it came to the factual conclusion that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year before his retrenchment. It also rejected the contention of the appellant herein that the Public Works Department of the State is not an industry by relying on a judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer (State of Kamataka) v. K. Somasettyl. In a challenge made to the said award before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the appellant herein did not question the finding of. the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in regard to the appellant being an industry. The challenge was confined to the question of fact whether the respondent workman had in fact completed 240 days as required under law. That challenge has been negatived by the High Court, therefore, there is a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant with which we are not inclined to interfere. 3. The learned counsel, however, contended that in CA No. 6471 of 2002 a Bench of this Court by its order dated 5-10-2004 has referred the question whether the Forest Department of the State Government is an industry or not to a Constitution Bench, therefore, this case also may be referred to the Constitution Bench. In support of this contention, he pointed out that this Court while granting leave had noted the question whether the Public Works Department is an industry and whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction. Therefore, this question may be deferred till the judgment of the Constitution Bench. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because neither before the High Court nor in this appeal the question of the Public Works Department not being an industry has been raised at all. In view of the said fact that there is no such issue arising on the pleadings in this appeal, we think it is not necessary to go into that question or await the judgment of the Constitution Bench in CA No. 6471 of 2002. 4. With the above observation this appeal is dismissed.