1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1701 OF 2007 (M/s. Khare and Company .v. Pundlik Mahadeo Lokhande and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.K. Chaware, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.B. Dhande, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Smt. S.S. Wandile, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By the impugned order passed in reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination order dated 31.12.1998 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with continuity in service and full back wages. Shri S.K. Chaware, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made the only submission that the petitioner is a partnership firm and since less than ten persons are employed, the same is not “Industry”. The learned Counsel to substantiate his contention relied upon The Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1982 (Act No.46 of 1982) whereby definition of “Industry” was amended. However, the aforesaid Amendment Act has not been 2 brought into force by the notification dated 21st August, 1984 and, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot rely upon the definition “Industry” as amended by Act No.46 of 1982. The definition of “Industry” given in Section 2(j) reads as follows :- “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workman.” There is no dispute that if this definition is taken into consideration, this petitioner/firm falls within the description of term “Industry”. In that view of the matter, I do not find any amerit in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.