PARVEZ S KOUL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LADY Respondent 2 -helper, a class IV employee of Tyndale Biscoe School Srinagar appointed on a valid order of appointment in the year 1988 was shown the door on the allegation of obnoxious behavior in the year 1998 after having served the school for a decade, resultantly, an industrial dispute, consequently, reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act) by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, J&K, Srinagar. The proceedings culminated in an award dated 30.05.2002 setting aside the order of termination which is assailed on the grounds summarized hereunder:

(2.) I would like to deal with all these issues in seriatim. The first being whether petitioner -School is an industry within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act. In this behalf reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondent 2 on the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in case Bangalore Water Supply versus A. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548) which has amplified the scope of the definition 'industry. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Sundarambal Versus Government of Goa, Daman & Diu wherein claim was rejected on the ground that a teacher of a School does not fall within the definition of a workman. Admittedly not attracted in the case on hand because respondent 2 is a helper and not a member of the teaching staff. The judgment at the same time mandates that an education institution does fall within the ambit of an industry. That being the legal position, objection has been raised simply to be rejected and I do so accordingly.

(3.) AS regards averment that amendment of Section 2(j) of the Act excludes an educational institution from the purview of an industry, the contention calls for reference to sub -section (2) of Section 1 which reads: