Decided on January 04,1967



- (1.) IN this case the petitioner, who was employed as a Physical Training Instructor in a Higher Secondary School, Sector VII, run by the Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the Industrial Court whereby that Court upheld an order of the Labour Court, Raipur, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, wages.
(2.) IN his application under Section 31 (3) of the Act, the petitioner complained that though his appointment as Physical Training Instructor was on a permanent basis, yet the management of the Project terminated his services with effect from 7th august 1962 without holding any enquiry and purely for victimising him as he had enrolled himself as a member of the Steel Worker's Union, Bhilai. The Labour court held that the petitioner's application under Section 31 (3) of the Act was not maintainable inasmuch as he being a teacher in a school did not fall within the definition of 'employee' given by Section 2 (13) of the Act and consequently it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned Presiding Officer of the labour Court relied on University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 SC 1873 thereupon the applicant preferred a revision petition before the Industrial Court against the decision of the Labour Court which was rejected by the Industrial Court agreeing with the view taken by the Labour Court.
(3.) SHRI Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Bhilai Steel project was "industry", as defined in Section 2 (19) of the Act. and the school, where the petitioner was employed as a Physical Train-Ing Instructor, was run by the Project and, therefore, the applicant fell within the term "employee" as defined by Section 2 (13) of the Act. It was said that the petitioner's case was governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Its employees, 1960-2 SCR 942 : (AIR 1960 SC 675) where it was held that the education department run by the Corporation was "industry" under Section 2 (14)of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. Learned counsel added that the decision in the case of University of Delhi, AIR 1963 SC 1873 (supra) was not in point as the predominant activity of the University of Delhi was educational and teaching whereat here the character of the activity of the Bhilai steel Project was Industrial.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.