Shri Jainendra Public School vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer- tiorari for quashing award dated 4.8.1998, copy An-nexure Pl, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.

The petitioner has averred that respondent No. 2 was a habitual absentee from duty. It is further averred that the petitioner-school does not come within the definition of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it is not an industry and that the respondent No. 2 had voluntarily abandoned her job after 30.4.1993.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as also perused the petition, an-nexures and the statements of the witnesses.

In the written statement, the management has taken the plea that the workman after leaving her job joined some other Institution but no evidence has come forth to show which Institution the respondent No. 2 had joined nor the name of any such Institution has been given in the oral testimony of the management witnesses. Smt. Sudha Babber, MW1, the Principal of the School has appeared before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the copy of her statement has been attached as Exhibit W-5 with the file of Labour Court. In her statement before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, she has admitted that no notice was given to the workman for resumption of her duties not she had enquired whether any notice was issued or not. This is a contradiction with the entries, Exhibits Ml/1 and M2/2 in the Despatch Register, brought on the record, in which it was shown that two notices were issued to the workman asking her to resume her duty. These entries are made at serial Nos. 63 and 64 in the Despatch Register. No witness has been produced by the management to show as to what were the contents of those letters which were sent to the workman. Respondent-workman in her testimony has stated that she had taken two days leave due to the death of her brother-in-law. The factum of leave has been admitted by the witness of management, MW-2 Surinder Patial. It has been admitted by the management that it received legal notice, but no reply was given by it to this notice. On perusing the legal notice, we find that she had requested that she be allowed to work and that her presence be marked. It is the admitted case of the parties that the respondent-workman had been working in the petitioner school for the last seven years and, thus, completed 240 days.

We also do not agree with the contention of counsel for the petitioner that school does not come within the definition of "Industry", The petitioner''s school is a private organisation and we are one with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the function of the management''s institution of imparting education to the children is non-sovereign and will, thus, come within the definition of ''Industry'' as provided in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.