Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THE award of the Labour court, Annexure -5, which is impugned in this writ petition, has been assailed by the petitioner -D.P.S. School, on the grounds that : (i) as the petitioner school is an educational institution, the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to it, (ii) the respondent No. 2 had been employed under a contract, Annexure -4, and with the termination of the contract, the service of the respondent -workman came to an end and therefore, the termination does not amount to retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently Section 25F of the Act is not applicable and (iii) the respondent -workman had not worked for 240 days continuously and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 25FF did not arise. Preliminarily, it was also canvassed on behalf of the petitioner earlier that the proceeding was quashed in CWJC No. 1322/1994R and therefore, this proceeding and the award are also bad and without jurisdiction. On perusal of the order dated 3.4.1995 passed in CWJC No. 1322/1994R, it transpires that two parallel proceedings one under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and another under the Industrial Disputes Act were pending in the court of the same Presiding Officer. By the said order, the Court quashed the proceeding under the Blhar Shops and Establishments Act, i.e. B.S.E. Case No. 3/1993. Thus, the labour dispute, which was pending before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, was not quashed. This argument has, therefore, no leg to stand.
(3.) THE next question to be considered is whether the petitioner being a School, the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to it. The definition of industry as it stands today is wide enough to include a School. Of course, the proposed definition, which has not yet come into force, though was substituted by the Act 46 of 1992, excludes the educational institutions from the purview, but till it is not in force, the educational institutions are covered under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, this argument is also not accepted.;