BIHAR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, NEW BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH RAJENDRA KUMAR, THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, NEW BAILEY ROAD, P.S. KHAJPURA, DISTRICT PATNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 19.01.2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2005 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna by which it has been held that the respondent no. 3 Kumar Ram Baran (for short "private respondent") is entitled to receive his due wages of Rs.1,51,327/- from the petitioner with 6 per cent interest from Jan., 2001 till the date of realization.

(2.) The private respondent had filed an application before the Labour Court under Sec. 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D. Act, 1947") for payment of arrears of wages from June, 1990 to April, 1994, Sept., 1998 to Feb., 2000, May 2000 to Dec., 2000, June, 2001 to July, 2001, Sept., 2001 to June, 2002 and Nov., 2002 to Jan., 2003. His stand before the Labour Court was that the petitioner is engaged in commercial and industrial activities. It charges heavy fee from the students for imparting them medical education. It is also engaged in purchasing and selling of machineries, equipments, tools, plants etc. to general public and as such it is an "Industry" within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the private respondent having been employed by the competent authority on the post of clerk is entitled to receive due wages.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Labour Court is erroneous in view of the fact that the petitioner, being an educational institution does not come within the purview of the meaning of "Industry" as defined under Sec. 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that even the private respondent cannot be called workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity to contest the matter before the Labour Court and on this ground also the order of the Labour Court is vitiated. In support of his contention, he has drawn attention of the Court towards Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (for short "Amendment Act, 1982") by which the educational, scientific research or training institutions have been excluded from the definition of 'Industry'.