PRINCIPAL DOONGAR COLLEGE Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. R. Singhvi at length.

(2.) PERUSED the award under challenge dated February 20, 1998 (Annex. 5 to the writ petition) passed by Judge, Labour Court Bikaner.

(3.) AT the first instance it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the present case. The Judge Labour Court, Bikaner has committed manifest error of law in holding that the college is an industry within the meaning of Section2 (j) and respondent No. 1 is a workman within the meaning of Section2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947 ). It is submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the college cannot be construed as an industry by any stretch of imagination inasmuchas a college is not a 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 workman. It is contended by Mr. Singhvi that respondent No. 1 also does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 which means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward.