1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.313 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.3027 of 2005 (Decided) (State of Mah., Department of Forests and others v. Vinod Mahadeorao Borkar) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri M.P. Badar, Advocate for Appellants. Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 24th January, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent/complainant was serving as Driver at Nagzira Wildlife Sanctuary since May 1991. He was orally terminated with effect from 16-2-1994. The complainant challenged his termination before the Labour Court at Bhandara. By order dated 12-12-2002, the learned Judge of the Labour Court partly allowed the complaint, declared that the respondents therein/the present appellants were engaged in unfair labour practice by terminating the services of the complainant. The present appellants were, therefore, directed to reinstate the complainant therein/the present respondent to the former post of Driver with continuity of service and with 50% back wages with effect from 16-2-1994. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Industrial Court. By order dated 16-2-2005, the learned Member of the Industrial Court, 2 Bhandara, partly allowed the revision, confirmed the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement and continuity of service. However, the Industrial Court quashed the order of the Labour Court granting 50% back wages with effect from 16-2-1994. The complainant challenged the said order of the Industrial Court before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3027 of 2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition directing payment of arrears of salary for the period between 12-12-2002 and 28-9-2004 instead of 50% back wages with effect from 16-2-1994. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Wild Life Wing of the Forest Department is not an “industry” and as such all the orders are illegal. However, we find that this plea was never raised before the Labour Court, Industrial Court or even before the learned Single Judge. Hence it cannot now be raised in LPA. 4. In the result, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl