RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). THE present petition is filed challenging the judgement and award dated 27th April, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCR) No. 691 of 1986 (old), which was given a new number, being Reference (LCJ) No. 635 of 1990, whereby, the action of the petitioner-establishment of terminating the services of the respondent-workman is declared as illegal and ordered to pay 40% of the wages for the period from 15th May, 1985 to 2 6/09/1999 to the widow of the deceased-workman, who died during the pendency of the Reference on 29/09/1999. ( 2 ) ). IT is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner is not falling within the definition of word, "industry", provisions of the industrial laws are not applicable to the establishment. Alternatively, the petitioners case is that the respondent-workman was engaged for the activity of `social forestation and as there was no budget and the work was over, his services were terminated. Further that the respondent-workman had never completed 240 days and as per the provisions of the Forest Manual, the respondent-workman was not required to be given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. That the respondent-workman had worked from 1984 to 1985, only intermittently, and thereafter, he was allowed to resume duty in 1994, after that, of his own, he stopped coming of his own. ( 3 ) ). NONE of the aforesaid contentions found favour with the learned Judge of the Labour Court, who appreciated them and discussed in detail each one of them. The first contention that there was no budget and the work was over are self contradictory. The petitioner-establishment ought to have taken the acceptable pleas before the Court. To say in the same breathe that there was no budget and the work was over, rightly did not appeal to the learned Judge of the Labour Court. ( 4 ) AS regards the contention that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days, the establishment could have produced the relevant and convincing evidence before the Court to fortify its case. The contention that the provisions of the Forest Manual are applicable and under those provisions, neither notice nor notice pay, nor retrenchment compensation is payable, is also rightly rejected by the Labour Court. The contention that the provisions of the Forest Manual are applicable and under those provisions, neither notice nor notice pay, nor retrenchment compensation is payable, is also rightly rejected by the Labour Court. ( 5 ) BESIDES this, the case of the petitioner-establishment that the respondent-workman was not terminated from service and that he himself had stopped coming, is not believed by the learned Judge. It is observed that the establishment has not given any notice to the respondent-workman to resume duty and has not put up such a case in reply to the notice, Exh. 15. ( 6 ) ). FOR the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the Labour Court, having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in detail, has not committed any error, which warrants any interference at the hands of this Court. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner-establishment is directed to comply with the order of the Labour Court within 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. The respondent-workman has already expired during the pendency of the Reference. Now it is the widow, who is to get the amount of back-wages awarded by the learned Judge. ( 8 ) DIRECT service is permitted to the respondent to serve the petitioner-establishment so as to see that the direction given by this Court is complied with. .