BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against an award of the Labour Court dated 22.7.1988 passed in adjudication case No. 24 of 1987. The order of reference was as herein below : "KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA APNE SHRAMIK LAKSHMI CHANDRA PUTRA SRI SHAMANTI SINGH TUBEWELL OPERATOR KE SEWAYEN DINANK 25.8.1984 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/UPSUM (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?
(2.) WHILE answering the said reference, the Labour Court examined the issue as to whether the school in which the petitioner was working, was an industry or not? Labour Court has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that a school was not an industry. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others, AIR 1988 SC 1700, that a school is an industry. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a teacher is not a workman but Class III and IV staff working in a school would definitely be covered within the definition of workman and held that the school was an 'industry1.
(3.) THUS the Labour Court has wrongly said that the school is not an industry. This finding of the Labour Court in its award dated 22.7.1988 is wrong and is liable to be set aside. However, while answering the reference, the Labour Court has also noticed the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was a probationer whose term was extended thrice and while he was on his third period of probation, he was removed because he was not up to the mark. Labour Court has also recorded that the workman was given one month notice pay and other dues and the same were accepted by the workman. The finding of the Labour Court with regard to the cessation of services of the petitioner as probationer is perfectly correct.;