S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been instituted by the employer against the award dated 19.7.1996 rendered by the Labour Court (IVth) U. P., Sarvoday Nagar, Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 296 of 1995 in favour of the respondent No. 2, Km. Neelam Sharma. The dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) was as to whether the employers were justified in precluding Km. Neelam Sharma from doing her duties as Steno/Typist w.e.f. 23.7.1994 and if not what relief/compensation was she entitled to get and with effect from which date.
(2.) On the facts found by the Labour Court and submissions made across the Bar, the questions that have come to the fore for consideration by this Court are threefold : firstly, whether respondent Km. Neelam Sharma came within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2 (z) of the State Act : secondly, whether termination of service by efflux of time would amount to 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2 (s) of the State Act ; and thirdly, whether definition of the term 'retrenchment' as given in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short the Central Act), will prevail over the definition of the term as given in Section 2 (s) of the State Act. In re--the first question :
(3.) It has been contended by Sri V. B. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the U. P. Financial Corporation is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the State Act and ; that the employees of the Corporation are 'public servants' within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and, therefore, reference under Section 4K of the State Act and was not maintainable and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of U. P. Public .Services Tribunal under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act. 1976. Sri V. B. Singh placed reliance on certain judgments of the Supreme Court in which correctness of the seven-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, had been doubted and matter referred to larger Bench for consideration. The submission made by Sri V. B. Singh has no merits and, it seems, was advanced but to be rejected. In Coir Board Ernakulam, Kerala State v. Indira Deval, (2000) 1 SCC 224, the view taken by the seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) has been reiterated and it has been held that there is no need for reference to a larger Bench. In Samistha Dubey v. City Board, Etawah and another, (1999) 3 SCC 14, a typist/clerk in the administrative office of a Nagar Palika in U. P. was held to be a 'workman' to whom the provisions of the U. P. Public (Tribunal) Act, 1976 would not apply. It is, therefore, not necessary to dilate much on this point which is concluded against the petitioners by pronouncements of the Supreme Court. I am inclined to the view that the petitioner Corporation is an 'Industry' and the petitioner comes within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2 (z) of the State Act. In re--questions 2 and 3;