1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5560/2009. The Secretary to Govt. Rural Development -: versus :- Ramchandra Babanrao Wadatkar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 5, 2010. Learned A.G.P. has pointed out that respondent no.5 is reported to be dead and is seeking time to bring his legal heirs on record. Shri Thengre, learned counsel for respondents is opposing the request. He states that the orders are concurrent and issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court [by me] reported at 2009 [1] Mh.L.J. 553 (Divisional Secretary, MS. Board of secondary .vrs. Mohd. Naim Abdul Rahim). He states that the juniors are retained in service. Learned AGP points out that the department of Social Forestry is not an Industry. He further states that the Industrial Court has not recorded any finding that juniors are retained in service. Shri Thengre, learned counsel states that there was no challenge to the finding of Labour Court about retention of juniors before the Industrial Court. The Labour Court has specifically in para nos. 37 and 38 of its judgment found that juniors were retained and this stand of employees before it was not even countered by 2 petitioners. The finding of Labour Court has not been assailed before the Industrial Court and as such the Industrial Court has not recorded any finding in that respect. According to Shri Thengre, learned counsel, after respondents filed proceedings under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act before Labur Court at Wardha for not implementing the orders, present Writ Petition has been filed. It is not necessary for this court to go into that controversy. Learned AGP has pointed out the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka .vrs. Umadevi, (AIR 2006 SC 1806) has not been properly appreciated. As juniors are retained the situation changes and the said reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court cannot apply to the present facts. The reliance upon the judgment reported at 2002 [3] Mh.L.J. 760 (Marathwada Sarwa Shramik Sanghtana .vrs. Assistant Director, Department of Social Foresty, Parbhani), to contend that Social Forestry being a welfare activity is not an Industry, is totally misconceived. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Chief Conservator of Forest .vrs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare reported at AIR 1996 SC 2898, has held that as the activities of Forest Department are not sovereign activities, the same are covered by Section 2[j], and therefore constitute an Industry. The Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, reported at AIR 1978 SC 548, has held that only sovereign activity in strict sense qualify for exemption. If in a department carrying out such 3 sovereign activities, if severance is possible, the parts therein not engaged in such sovereign activities, can be treated as Industry. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment reported at 2005 [5] SCC 1 (State of U.P. .vrs. Jai Bir Singh), has no doubt referred the judgment of Larger Bench to still Larger Bench, but it can not be said that this Constitution Bench has overruled the judgment in case of Jagannath Maruti Kondhare. (supra). In the circumstances, in view of the judgment delivered by me, reported at 2009 [1] Mh.L.J. 553 (Divisional Secretary, MS. Board of secondary .vrs. Mohd. Naim Abdul Rahim), no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.