- (1.) This order shall govern the disposal of D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2005 Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra vs. Judge Labour Court & Anr. and D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.117/2012 Smt. Sita Rani Vs. Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra & Anr. as both arise out of the same impugned order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5066/1996.
(2.) In short, the facts are these. The appellant Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2005 is a registered Society. According to the appellant, its running an institution for deaf and dumb at Kota. The case of appellant is that it appointed Sita Rani (appellant in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.117/2012) on 1.1.1976 as teacher and at that time, the institution was not getting any aid from the Government. The appellant when started receiving aid, it beame necessary that Sita Rani must fulfil the qualification presecribed for the post of Teacher. But since Sita Rani did not fulfill the requisite qualification of Matric and training provided for the post of teacher, her services were discontinued w.e.f. 14.4.1982.
(3.) Aggrieved, Sita Rani preferred an appeal before the District Education Officer (Female), Kota under the provisions of Grant in Aid rules which was dismissed by order dated 8.2.1983 on the ground of limitation. Sita Rani then filed a civil suit for grant of injunction in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (South), Kota but it was withdrawn vide order dated 7.3.1984 after her application for temporary injunction was dismissed on merits. Sita Rani then initiated conciliation proceedings in the year 1989 before the Conciliation Officer wherein the appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of proceedings on the plea that Sita Rani being a teacher was not a 'workman'. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of appellant is further that even before the Labour Court, it raised a specific plea that as Sita Rani was a teacher, she did not come within the meaning of workman and, therefore, the labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.;