AKIL KURESHI, J. ( 1 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 3 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 5 ) HAVING considering the submissions, it can be seen that the petitioner had in the written statement, contended before the labour Court that the Forest Department is not an industtry since the activities carried on by the Department do not come within the meaning of the term "industry" as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Despite this specific averment, the Labour court had proceeded with the reference and allowed the same in favour of the respondent without deciding the question whether the respondent was engaged in an industry or not. I find that the Full Bench decision in the case of Gujarat Forest producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers union (supra) had concluded in answer to question No. 1 to the following effect:"que-1 Whether the Forest Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial disputes Act. 1947 or not? que-2 Whether Forest Department of the "stale" is an industry or not? ans- (1) The. Forest and Environment department of the State Government is not an induslry under Section 2 (j) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the question whether any of its unit, eslablishment or undertaking is an industry or not will depend upon the nature of the work done by such entity and only when the activity undertaken amounts to an activity for production or distribution of goods and/or services for satisfying wants and desires of consumers, in the sense in which the concepts are understood in the field of industrial economy, satisfying the third ingredient of the triple ingredients test, that such unit, eslablishment or undertaking of the Department can be said to be an industry, unless falling in the categories removed by constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions from the scope of the Induslrial Disputes act as indicaled in clause (c) of Hem IV of the guidelines laid down by Ihe Supreme courl in paragraph 161 of Bangalore Water supply case (supra), including the law falling under Articles 305 to 311 of the constitution. " ( 6 ) FROM the ratio laid down An (sic.) the full Bench decision, it can be seen that whether a person employed in the Foresl department is engaged in an "industry" or not will depend upon the nature of the work done by him by such unit and only when the activity undertaken amounts to an activity for production or distribution of goods and/or services for satisfying wants and desires of consumers, then such unit, establishment or undertaking of the departmenl can be said to be an "industry". I find that there is no discussion in the award of the Labour Courl nor there is any material to examine whether the above test laid down by the Full Bench is satisfied in the present case. In view of" the fact that the petitioner had specifically contended before the Labour Court that the respondent is not engaged in an industry, the submission of the respondent that the said contention is being taken before this Court for the first time cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 8 ) XXX xxx xxx .