- (1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 07.09.2012 passed in I.I.D.Nos.128 and 129/2003 as at Annexure-A to the petition.
(2.) The respondents herein had raised a dispute in I.I.D.Nos.128 and 129/2003 contending that they were illegally terminated from the services on 15.06.2003, though they had continuously been working in the School being run by the petitioner herein. The Labour Court at Mysuru after referring to the evidence available on record has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents have rendered more than 240 days of service in a year and in that view, having arrived at the conclusion that the provision contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 has not been followed before terminating the services of the respondents, has set aside the termination and directed reinstatement.
(3.) The petitioner herein while assailing the award would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in granting reinstatement as has been done in the present case. Learned Government Advocate would contend that the respondents were claiming that they were working in the School. The School cannot be considered as an Industry and therefore the consideration as made by the Labour Court is not justified. It is also the case of the learned Government Advocate that the respondents in any event cannot contend that they had been working against any vacant post nor they had been appointed after following due procedure for appointment and as such, no relief could have been granted to them. In that light, it is contended that the Labour Court has committed a serious error in directing reinstatement and the award is liable to be set aside.;