SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs. SARLABAI G. LOTLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated 27th February, 1992 made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur, in Reference (IDA) No. 110 of 1987 under the provisions of section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE First Petitioner is the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, who is in charge of the Police Welfare Board, a body set up privately for the welfare of the police personnel in the District by voluntary contribution made by the police personnel. The Welfare Board intended to undertake welfare activities for the families of the police personnel, though not as a part of the State's activity. The First Respondent was employed in the said Board from or about the year 1954 and was required to do the work of imparting training on sewing machines to the wives of the police personnel, preparation of milk from milk-powder and distribution thereof to the children of the police personnel and such other activities. The First Respondent was initially paid Rs.175/- per month which came to be increased from time to time and her last drawn pay was Rs.300/- per month. In the year 1985 she made a demand that she should be paid an additional amount of Rs.50/- as travelling allowance since she was required to travel by bus and spend that much from her pocket. As a result of her representation, her service came to be abruptly terminated with effect from 1st June, 1986.

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court the Petitioners justified the order of termination on the ground that the First Respondent was a 'teacher' and, therefore, not a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act. They also took up the stand that the termination of service of the First Respondent was justified on merits as she was unauthorisedly carrying out private work, which was a misconduct under the applicable Rules. The Labour Court tried the reference and came to the conclusion that the welfare activity carried out by the Petitioners was an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act since it was not disputed, but that the only contention raised by the Petitioners was that the First Respondent being a teacher was not a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Upon appraisal of the evidence on record, the Labour Court concluded that the nature of activities carried out by the First Respondent did not make her a teacher so as to put her out of the purview of the definition of the 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Act. On merits, the Labour Court held that the termination of the First Respondent's service was illegal and improper. On these conclusions, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the First Respondent with continuity of service and full back-wages. The Petitioners have impugned the said Award by the present writ petition.