KAMYANI VIDYA MANDIR Vs. SANGEETA EXKNATH SANGHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 12.12.2000 by which the Labour Court has observed that the petitioner is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has also held that the respondent No. 1 is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As these two issues were decided as preliminary issues, there is no finding recorded by the Labour Court on merits.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be an educational institute for mentally challenged children. It is funded by various business houses. According to the petitioner, its main object is to impart education to the mentally challenged and to rehabilitate them in order to enable them to lead independent lives as an integral part of society. The petitioner employed the respondent No.1 as a "Teacher" from 4.8.1992 on a temporary basis. After the temporary period was over on 3.2.1993, the petitioner appointed the 1st respondent again for a period of two months i.e. upto 30.4.1993 on a temporary basis. According to the petitioner, the services of the 1st respondent were not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, memos, warnings and a show cause notice, were issued to her for a several acts of misconduct including late attendance, absenteeism, etc. The services of the 1st respondent were terminated by letter dated 24.4.1993 as she was found unsuitable to continue in employment. Thus, the services of the 1st respondent came to an end on 1.5.1993.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. It was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 251 of 1994. The 1st respondent filed statement of claim contending that she was employed in an industry and that she was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent pleaded that although she was appointed as a Craft Teacher, she was expected to do any work which was allotted to her by the petitioner. She has pleaded in her statement of claim that she was required to do other work like typing, book binding, etc. herself, besides training to mentally challenged to do such jobs. The 1st respondent contend that her services have been terminated without an enquiry and, therefore, the action taken by the petitioner was illegal and unjustified.