R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) IN both the writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the common order dated 17.6.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 13 of 1990 allowing the petition filed by respondent no. 3 under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). The order was passed against the writ petitioner -Associated Cement Company, which was purchased by the writ petitioner Lemos Cement Company and, therefore, two writ petitions.
(2.) MR . Satish Bakshi, appearing for M/s Lemos Cement Company Limited and Mr. V Shivnath, appearing for Associated Cement Company Limited submitted that respondent no. 3 (Raghaw Sharan) was admittedly a teacher in the school run by the Company and, therefore, he was not a 'workman' under the Act. They submitted that the application under section 33C(2) of the Act filed by respondent no. 3 itself was not maintainable. They submitted that the said objection was raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court but the same was ignored on the ground that the rulings cited by the petitioners were not placed before the Labour Court and, therefore, it appeared that the petitioners had halfheartedly raised this point of maintainability. The Labour Court held that in view of the definition of "workman" under the Act, the application of respondent no. 3 was maintainable. Mr. Bakshi relied on the decision of Miss A. Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Others [1989(1) ILLJ 61] which was cited before the Labour Court also. It has been held in paragraph 9 of the judgment that 'teacher' is not a 'workman' under the Act. Mr. Shivnath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Unrecognised Schools' Association vs. State of Haryana [(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225] in which also, similar view has been taken.
(3.) POINTING out to the supplementary affidavits, Mr. Bakshi and Mr. Shivnath submitted that respondent no. 3 took V.R.S. with effect from 3.1.1989 but has not vacated the quarter as yet. He is liable to vacate the same and pay the rent and electricity charges from February, 1989 which will be more than the amount claimed and legally payable to him. They further submitted that respondent no. 3 has been convicted for illegally retaining the quarter under section 630 of the Companies Act, and has been directed to vacate the same. Against the said order, he has preferred appeal which is pending. Be that as it may, they submitted that on the jurisdictional Issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that teacher is not a workman, the impugned order has to be set aside.;