S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Chandra Shekher Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as CSA University) and its authorities have filed this writ petition against award dated 13.8.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II) U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 162 of 2000.
(2.) THE matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 2 Rakesh w.e.f. 1.1.1999 was just and legal or not. Labour Court held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. Respondent No. 2 was employed on 11.3.1988 on the post of Peon/ Chaukidar. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not an Industry. Labour Court after placing reliance upon seven Judges Authority of the Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board v. R. Rajappa : 1978 (36) FLR 266 (SC), held that the university was an industry. Even though the constitution Bench of five Judges reported in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh : 2005 (106) FLR 190 (SC) : 2005 (34) AIC 391 (SC), has referred the matter to a larger Bench but until decision by a larger Bench the authority reported in Bangalore Water Works has to be treated as binding. Labour Court rightly held that petitioner was an industry. The contention of the petitioner was that it was engaged in imparting the education in agricultural science and doing agricultural research.
(3.) IT was also contended that respondent No. 2 was a daily wager. It was also contended that he was found to have committed the misconduct, hence in order to avoid the inquiry he stopped coming w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Admittedly, no compensation as required by section 6 -N of U.P.I.D. Act was paid. The labour Court held that it was fatal. Respondent No. 2 was engaged in connection with fisheries research. In December, 1998 some fishes was stolen from the pond in respect of which he was doing duty. He was deputed to guard fishes in the pond. Labour Court found that in respect of allegation of theft of the fishes in December 1998, no inquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 2.;