-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8341 OF 2008 Balkrishna Dada Padalkar : Petitioner V/s. Deputy Forest Conservator Satara Van Vibhag (Forest Department) & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.Vanarse, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for resp. nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Vanarse, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, waives service for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 23.7.2008 by which the learned Industrial Court has dismissed his complaint filed against the respondents under section 28 read with item nos.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, in which he has claimed the relief of permanency. A perusal -: 2 :- of the order of the Industrial Court shows that the Industrial Court has held that the respondent-Forest Department is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and yet has come to the conclusion that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice as alleged. Further, the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. From the impugned order, there appears to be no reason for a declaration of unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Act, after giving a finding that the respondent-Forest Department is not an ‘industry’. From the scheme of the Act and in particular Chapter VI, it is clear that unfair labour practices by employers, union and employees are prohibited. Both the terms ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ have been defined in section 3 only in relation to an industry. If the Industrial Court was of view that the respondent-Department is not an industry, there was no reason to give a declaration of unfair labour practice. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. All issues are left open. Status quo which was granted by the Industrial Court in the year 1999 and said to have been -: 3 :- maintained throughout the proceedings before the Industrial Court shall be maintained till the final disposal of the complaint. The Industrial Court shall dispose of the complaint within six months from the date the parties appear before the Industrial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 30.3.2009. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.