vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3885 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3885 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3885 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Dhondu Barku Bhamre ... Respondent Mr.D.A. Patil, AGP, for Petitioners Mr.Nitin Mishra for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 28, 2008 JULY 28, 2008 JULY 28, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed in complaint (ULP) No.195 of 1993 on 24.4.2007 and the order passed in revision (ULP) No.38 of 2007 dated 29.11.2007. The Labour Court has upheld the contention of the workman and has declared that the petitioner has indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with 50% backwages and continuity of service from 22.7.1993. The Industrial Court in revision has modified the oder by directing that the backwages should be reduced to 25%. However, the order in respect of reinstatement with continuity of service is maintained. 2. Mr.Patil, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the respondent has not proved that he had worked for 240 days and that he was entitled to any relief. Apart from this, he submits that there was no averment in the complaint that the workman was working in an : 2 : Industry and that therefore, the complaint was maintainable. He submits that the petitioner had raised an objection in its written statement regardign the maintainability of the complaint since the petitioner was not an industry. 3. On a perusal of the order of the Labour Court, I find that the Labour Court has rightly relied on the judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v/s. Jagannath M. Kondhare, AIR 1996 SC 2898 AIR 1996 SC 2898 AIR 1996 SC 2898 wherein it has been held that the forest department is an industry. The Labour Court has then considered the fact that the petitioners have produced photocopies on record of certain documents to indicate that the workman had not completed 240 days. The Labour Court has rightly rejected these photocopies since the originals which were available with the petitioner had not been produced on record. 4. In my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error in granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service to the workman. The Industrial Court has for good reasons recorded, reduced the backwages to 25%. There is no warrant to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below. : 3 : 5. Petition is rejected.