IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 51 of 2010 Rajendra Singh Rawat …Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents. Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the controversy in the instant case is a pure question of law, and as such, it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one contention so as to impugn the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.4.2010 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 114 of 2010. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has been relegated by the learned Single Judge, to raise the dispute (raised through a writ petition), to the concerned authorities under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that no such dispute can be raised by the appellant before the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In this behalf it is submitted, that the appellant was an employee of the Police Department. It is submitted that the Police Department is not an “industry” within the meaning of the term “industry” defined in Section 2 (k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges that the Police Department of the State Government is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2 4. In view of the factual/legal position noticed above, we are satisfied that an industrial dispute cannot be raised by the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on account of the fact that the employer of the appellant is not an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 114 of 2010 is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 114 of 2010 is ordered to be restored to its original number, for a fresh decision on merits. Learned counsel for the rival parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 21.5.2010. Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.4.2010