JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-appellant-State is aggrieved against the judgment dated 29.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the State's writ petition to challenge the award dated 21.12.2000 (Annex.5) was dismissed after observing that under writ jurisdiction, the court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the labour court. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that several grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge, but none of them have been considered and decided. It is submitted that the respondent-employee was engaged in a project and, therefore, he cannot take shelter under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). It is also submitted that the appellant-forest department is not the industry as defined under the Act of 1947, therefore also, the respondent-employee cannot take shelter under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Learned Addl. Advocate General also relied upon the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Pratam Singh Nar Singh Parmar reported in (2001) 9 SCC 713 wherein it has been held that ordinarily the Government department cannot be treated to be an industry. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee submitted that this is a pure question of fact which has not been raised by the appellant-State before the learned labour court, however, absolute vague plea was taken, but for that vague plea also, the appellant did not produce any evidence. It is also submitted that after the award of the learned labour court, the respondent-employee has already been reinstated and he is in service. 5. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasoning given by the labour court in the award dated 21.12.2000 and further the additional document placed on record in appeal as Annex.12. It is clear from the reply filed by the appellant before the labour court as well as the affidavit of the witnesses of the appellant that absolutely vague plea was taken that the respondent-employee was engaged in "any" project without disclosing even the name of the project. It is clear from the reply filed by the appellant before the labour court as well as the affidavit of the witnesses of the appellant that absolutely vague plea was taken that the respondent-employee was engaged in "any" project without disclosing even the name of the project. However, the affidavit has been filed by the representative of the appellant-State, but relevant is that the respondent-employee was not put to any question about this question of fact that he was engaged in any project. The Annex.12 produced in appeal also reveals that the appellant-employer have not stated in this Annex.12 dated 5th Sept., 1994 that the respondent-employee was engaged in any project and he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation. It will be further worthwhile to mention here that the appellant's own case was that there are standing orders also governing the conditions of service of the respondent-employee. 6. In view of the above fact, the finding of fact recorded by the learned labour court was rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge as binding as it could not have been interfered it by re-appreciating any evidence and particularly when, the plea of the appellant was not specific and there was no evidence. 7. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Special Appeal dismissed. *******