LEMOS COMENT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the common order dated 17-6-1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 13 of 1990 allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 3 under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). The order was passed against the writ petitioner-Associated Cement Company, which was purchased by the writ petitioner Lemos Cement Company and, therefore, two writ petitions.

(2.) Mr. Satish Bakshi, appearing for M/s. Lemos Cement Company Limited and Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for Associated Cement Company Limited submitted that respondent No. 3 (Raghaw Sharan) was admittedly a teacher in the school run by the Company and, therefore, he was not a 'workman' under the Act. They submitted that the application under section 33C(2) of the Act filed by respondent No. 3 itself was not maintainable. They submitted that the said objection was raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court but the same was ignored on the ground that the rulings cited by the petitioners were not placed before the Labour Court, and therefore, it appeared that the petitioners had half heartedly raised this point of maintainability. The Labour Court held that in view of the definition of "workman" under the Act, the application of respondent No. 3 was maintainable.

(3.) Mr. Bakshi relied on the decision of Miss A. Sundarambai v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and others, 1988 (57) FLR 462 (SC), which was cited before tne Labour Court also. It has been held in paragraph 9 of the judgment that 'teacher' is not a 'workman' under the Act, Mr. Shivnath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Unrecognised Scnools' Association v. State of Haryana, 1996 (73) FLR 1086 (SC) in which also, similar view has been taken.