STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SH CHHEDI LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the State of Punjab through the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry (Training) and the Director, Animal Husbandry challenging the award of the Labour Court, Patiala dated 10.6.1992 whereby the workman -respondent was found entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.

(2.) THE first respondent (for short, the workman) was employed in the office of the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry (Training) Patiala as a gardener on daily wages drawing wages of Rs. 510/ - per month as per the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is common case of the parties that the workman joined on 25.9.1986 and his services were terminated with effect from March 30, 1988. On an industrial dispute raised by the workman the same was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Patiala. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour Court found that the workman had put in more than 240 days of service prior to the date of termination of his services and that the termination was made without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The termination was, therefore, held invalid and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. This award is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) IT has been half heartedly argued by Assistant Advocate General that the impugned award deserves to be quashed on the ground that the Department of Animal Husbandry where the petitioner was working was an educational institution and was not an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. This argument is being noticed only to be rejected in view of the authoritative decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajapa and Ors., : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 548 where an educational institution has been held to be an industry.