HAL EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award made by the Labour Court in adjudication case No. 171 of 1991 dated September 17, 1996, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The said award was made on the reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act on September 30, 1991 to the effect as to whether the termination or disengagement of Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava workman, clerk-cum-typist on February 1, 1990 by the employer was just and legal, if no to what relief the workman was entitled. After the aforesaid reference the workman, opposit party No. 1, filed his claim in the form (sic) written statement on March 10, 1992 statin(sic) therein that the employer, the petitioners institution is run in the compound of H.A.I Korwa under its control for impartin education to the children of the employees (sic) the H.A.L. The workman was appointed in the above establishment on July 30, 1987 to work as clerk/typist and from the date of appointment he continued to work till January 31, 1990 and in this period every year he has completed 240 days. The services of the opposite party No. 1, the workman, have been terminated without any notice or compensation on February 1, 1990 illegally. The order of termination is in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, oral order of termination is liable to be set aside and the workman, opposite party No.1 is entitled to reinstatement. The employer, the petitioners, also filed their written statement on March 10, 1992 in which it has been stated that the petitioners' institution H.A.L. is run by the Education Society in H.A.L. which is registered under the Societies Registration Act and is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. This institution is not on grant-in-aid of the Government. In this institution the children of the employees of HAL, Korwa are imparted education. Few students from outside are also admitted. The entire expenditure of the institution is borne by the HAL Korwa Division from its welfare fund. The institution is not being run for any benefit, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of Industry as defined under Section 2-Z of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It has further been stated that the opposite party No. 1 workman was never appointed against any regular post; he was on casual basis, therefore, he was not entitled for regularisation. His services have not been terminated on February 1, 1990, rather he himself did not turn up to work and abandoned the employment.

(2.) In his rejoinder affidavit filed by the workman, opposite party No. 1, to the written statement filed by the petitioner the workman had denied the statement of the petitioners that the institution does not fall within the definition of industry. He has further stated in his rejoinder affidavit that the work which was being done by him was of permanent nature and since he had continuously worked from 1987 to 1990 he stood regularised. The work which was being done by him is still being done in the institution, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement.

(3.) A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioners to the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 1, the workman stating therein that the employer institution is independent of HAL, and, therefore, does not fall within the purview of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.