ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the award dated 20.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby on a reference made to it by the appropriate Govt. the Labour Court rejected the claim on coming to the conclusion that the respondent-Forest Department was not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court wherein the Court has come to the conclusion that it cannot be held as a thumb rule that the respondent-Department is not an Industry and therefore, the award deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed on judgment in Shambhulal vs. Deputy Forest Officer and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4249/2007, decided on 15.04.2015 and Laxman Singh and Another vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5418/2006, decided on 14.12.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the Labour Court after considering the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that the respondent-Department was not an Industry and the said award does not call for any interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. This court in the case of Shambhulal vs. Deputy Forest Officer and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4249/2007, decided on 15.04.2015 while deciding a similar nature dispute laid down and directed as under:- “In the case of Partam Singh (supra), relied upon by the Tribunal, the employee therein was a clerk whereas the petitioners herein were all engaged as daily wage labourers in the forest department. Thus, on facts also, the case of Partam Singh (supra) does not apply to the case of the present petitioners. Thus, on facts also, the case of Partam Singh (supra) does not apply to the case of the present petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and Another vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, AIR 1995 SC 2898 that the scheme of social foresting undertaken by the forest department cannot be regarded as a part of sovereign function of the State and thus, the issue as to whether the Government department would be covered by the definition of Industry, would have to be decided in context of the nature of duties assigned to the workman concerned. It was held that there was no threshold bar upon the employees in knocking the door of the Industrial Courts for making a grievance about the unfair labour practice adopted by the department. 9. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the following judgments:- (i) State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Ram Lal and Another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 495/2004 decided on 19.9.2011. (ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Chandra and Another, 2003 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 897. (iii) Babu Lal vs. Labour Court, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2005 decided on 25.1.2006. In all these cases, it was held by the Division and Single Benches of this Court that the forest department is covered by the definition of Industry. 10. So far as the aspect of delay in raising the dispute is concerned, in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 Lab. I.C. 4266, it was held by the Supreme Court that reference of industrial dispute for adjudication can be made by the Government at any time. It was further held that provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to such claims. 11. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claims of the petitioners were dismissed on the aforesaid two grounds viz., the respondent department not being an industry and the claims being belated, cannot be sustained as being grossly illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal as a matter of fact preempted the claims filed on behalf of the petitioners without putting them on notice on the issue of the department not being the industry. They were required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. 12. The Tribunal as a matter of fact preempted the claims filed on behalf of the petitioners without putting them on notice on the issue of the department not being the industry. They were required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. 12. The view taken by the Tribunal that the claims were liable to be thrown on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly is also unsustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra). 13. Resultantly, the instant writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 10.5.2006 is quashed and the matters are remanded back to the Labour Court, Bhilwara for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. The Labour Court will proceed with the cases expeditiously and decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 6. The aspect decided by the Tribunal pertaining to the Forest Department not being an industry has been exhaustively dealt with and a conclusion has been reached that the petitioners were required to be provided an opportunity to lead evidence on the said aspect that the Forest Department is covered within the definition of Industry. 7. In view thereof, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment of Shambhulal (supra). 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 20.10.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the matter on merits in terms of law laid down by this Court in the case of Shambhulal (supra). The Labour Court is directed to ensure that the matter is preferably decide within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.