Judgment 1. The prayer in this application is to dispose of the main case being covered by an order of this Court, dated 20th September, 2004, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13388 of 2002. 2. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up for hearing. 3. In this writ petition, the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, govt. of Punjab has impugned the award, dated 16th October, 2000 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur in terms whereof respondent No.1 has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Learned State Counsel has fairly stated that the impugned award is challenged primarily on the premise that the Animal husbandry department does not fall within the ambit of "industry" as defined in section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act ). 4. Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 sc 540 and after taking notice of the amended definition introduced by Act no.46 of 1982, a Division bench of this Court vide its order dated May 6, 2003 passed in CWP No.4792 of 2003 (Deputy Director, Animal husbandry V/s. Vijay Kumar and others) has held that the Animal husbandry Department of the State of Punjab falls within the definition of industry as given in the Act. The aforementioned view has since been upheld by the Apex Court by declining Special Leave Petition nos.572 and 573 of 2004 on 30th January, 2004 (Annexure A-2 ). Thereafter, a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated September 20, 2004 passed in CWP No.13388 of 2002, and after relying upon the judgments of the supreme Court in Santosh Gupta V/s. State Bank of Patiala, 1980 (3)SCC 340; (ii) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation limited V/s. Labour Court, Chandigarh, 1990 (3) SCC 682; and (iii)Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Boards case (supra), reiterated that the Department of Animal Husbandry falls within the definition of industry. 5. Since in the case in hand also, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court has been challenged mainly on the ground that the department of Animal Husbandry is not an industry for purposes of the Act and the said issue is no longer res-integra, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 5. Since in the case in hand also, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court has been challenged mainly on the ground that the department of Animal Husbandry is not an industry for purposes of the Act and the said issue is no longer res-integra, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.