Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the 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 hereinbelow: KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA APNE SHRMIK 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 SHRMIK KYA LAB/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?
(3.) 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 & Diu and Ors. AIR1988 SC 1700 , JT1988 (3 )SC 121 , 1989 LablC1317 , (1989 )I LLJ61 SC , 1988 (2 )SCALE82 , (1988 )4 SCC42 , [1988 ]Supp1 SCR604 , 1989 (1 )SLJ61 (SC ), 1988 (2 )UJ329 (SC ) 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 'industry'.;