DY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER Vs. GOPAL RAM SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners who are Dy. District Education Officer (Boys) Nawalgarh and District Education Officer (Elem.) Jhunjhunu, have challenged an Award dated 27. 2. 1999 (Annex. 4) of the Labour Court, Jaipur.

(2.) UPON failure report of the Conciliation Officer on an industrial dispute raised by Gopalram Saini, respondent workman, the State Govt. by its Notification dt. 13. 9. 94 referred the dispute as to whether termination of the workman was just and proper, if not, then to what relief he is entitled? Thereupon in his statement of claim (Annex. 1) the workman claimed to have been appointed as Class IV employee on daily wages basis in July, 1983 at Loharda School of district Jhunjhunu and continued till 1. 7. 1985 but on 2. 7. 1985 he was not taken on duty on the pretext of his services having been terminated orally. He further claimed that after his termination various persons were newly appointed besides his juniors have been continued in service, inasmuch as his representations one after the other have not been considered and, therefore, he contended that his termination was an outcome being violative of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ). In reply (Annex. 2 & 3) to the claim of the workman, the petitioners raised objections that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly with no explanation of the delay of nine years; that since the school where the workman claimed to have been in service on daily wages basis did not come within the definition of `industry' as the schools of the petitioners are imparting education to the students. It was further contended in the reply that as per their record, the workman was appointed in October, 1984 on daily wages and not from July, 1983, inasmuch as since he did not work upto 1. 7. 1985 but worked only for 181 days only and that apart, the work having been taken was not of permanent nature, there were no violation of provisions of the Act as alleged in the claim so also in the representations of the workmen which were denied. Only affidavits are said to have been filed by both the parties to substantiate their averments made in claim and reply thereto. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court by its award referred to above (Annx. 4) held the termination of the respondent workman from 2. 7. 1985 as illegal and therefore ordered him to reinstate in service with continuity for further benefits, but with half back wages. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) AS regards the question as to whether the educational institute like school or college of the State Govt. is an industry or not, the conclusions drawn by the learned Labour Court are based on the dictum of law laid down by this Court in Principal Doongar College vs. Om Prakash (1) and A. Sunderambal vs. Goa. Daman & Diu State (2), wherein it has been held that the college is an industry. Upon careful reading of the decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court, I find that similar arguments as are being canvassed before me have been urged that the college cannot be construed as an industry by any stretch of imagination inasmuch as a college is not place of any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and it does not include any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. Such an argument was negatived relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in A. Sunderambal's case (supra ). Thus, once it is settled that the school is an industry in the present case then there would be no difficulty in holding that the respondent No. 1 is a workman being daily wages class IV employee of a Government school run and maintained by the State Govt. AS regards decision cited on behalf of the petitioners viz. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi vs. State of Bihar (3), the Labour Court observed that this decision stands overruled by another decision of the Apex Court renown as All India Television's case. Even otherwise also, though it was a case where the controversy was not as to whether educational institute or college or school is an industry or not, but was as to whether the petitioners workmen could be said to have been retrenched u/sec. 25f of the Act. However, it was also made explicit by saying that when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of `industry' to that extent stood excluded and further it was a case the petitioners workmen admittedly were engaged on the basis of need of the work. On the contrary in the instant case, the facts are totally distinct and distinguished, this is evident from aforesaid analysis of the conclusions of the labour court based on evidence and admission of the department itself. Hence, the decision of Himanshu Vidyarthi's case does not help in any manner to the petitioner department.