- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By the impugned order dated 7. 10. 2005 the State government had refused to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner on the ground that the demands Wised by the petitioner union is not valid. and the workers' union is not competent to raise this dispute. The impugned order dated 7. 10. 2005 is as under:case1261.jpg
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No. 4 is a private education institution and not an industry , hence no industrial dispute can be raised under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is settled that in an educational Institution the teachers may not fail within the ambit of definition of workman as given in section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but class-Ill and IV employees are workmen. Even if the petitioner wants to raise this objection he could do so before the Labour Court to whom the reference may be made.
(3.) IN my opinion, the Conciliation Officer could not adjudicate upon the dispute as to whether demands by the workmen are justified or not and whether the union was competent to raise the dispute or the workman himself individually are missed questions of facts and law. These can be decided only on basis of evidence which may be adduced by the parties.;