SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Ashok Kumar has approached this Court for assailing the award (Annexure- 6) dated 03.08.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Labour Case No.1/2004 whereby, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and his termination by order dated 01.06.2001 was upheld on the ground that the respondent Gaushala is not covered within the definition of Industry.
(2.) Shri Vishal Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Madras High Court judgment rendered in the case of The Management of Madras Pinjarapole v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, reported in AIR 1961 (Madras) 239, which was relied upon by the learned Tribunal for holding that the Gaushala is not covered in the definition of Industry, was subsequently reversed by the Division Bench of the very same court and therefore, the impugned award cannot be sustained as being grossly illegal.
(3.) Per contra, Shri G.R. Goyal, learned counsel representing the respondent employer urges that the Gaushala is indulged in charitable work of up-keep and treatment of ailing bovine animals. Thus, it cannot be covered by the definition of Industry as provided under Rule 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that apart from relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to above which was reversed in appeal, the learned Tribunal independently came to a conclusion that the petitioner could not prove that the Gaushala was being run for any of the purposes set out in Rule 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to bring it within the definition of Industry. He thus urged that no interference is called for in the award impugned.;