Raju, J. - (1.) The two important questions that are put in issue in this appeal are as to :(a) Whether the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board constituted under the provisions of the hereinafter referred to as "the Act", falls within the definition of "Industry" within the meaning of S. 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (b) Whether the appellant, appointed and working at the relevant point of time as an Inspector, discharging duties, powers and obligations envisaged under S. 15 answers the description of "workman" as defined in S.2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
(2.) The appellant was working as an Inspector in the Bombay Iron and Steel Labout Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") from 13-3-79, having been appointed as such on 10-3-79. On such appointment, the appellant was placed on probation for a period of three months and after putting in a service of 21 months, an order of termination came to be made on 17-12-80. According to the appellant, he was doing the work of supervision, detection of defaulters, other work of clerical nature, maintenance of registers, files, preparation of reports etc. On a dispute raised, a reference was made under S 10(1) and S. 12(5) of the I.D. Act, to the First Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. By an Award dated 18-7-86, the reference was rejected as not maintainable, on the findings recorded that the Board is not an 'Industry' and since the appellant was not employed in an 'Industry', he cannot fall within the definition of 'workman', though the Labour Court also recorded a finding that the appellant was not a workman. It was also found by the Labour Court that the appellant could not claim any automatic or deemed confirmation and that being only a probationer his services were dispensed with on being found not suitable for the post of Inspector.
(3.) The appellant pursued the matter by way of a Writ Petition before the learned single Judge as also an appeal before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court unsuccessfully, resulting in the filing of this appeal. Heard Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. S. Naphde, Senior Advocate, for the respondents. Strong reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, etc. vs. A. Rajappa etc. (1978) 2 SCC 213: besides inviting our attention to the decisions reported in D. N. Banerji vs. P. R. Mukheriee (1953) SCR 302, The Corporation of the City of Nagpur vs. Its Employees (1960) 2 SCR 942, Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board vs. Stevedores Asso-ciation, Vishakhapatnam (1971) 1 SCR 177 : H. R. Advanthaya vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737 : and that of a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Management of Dock Labour Board, Vishakh-apatnam vs. Industrial Tribunal (1996) 1 Lab LJ 5.;