# Tamil Nadu v. Union of India and

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 513
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61774 of 2007
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tamil-nadu-v-union-of-india-and-42231
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Charitable Education Institution-whether
exumpted from provision of Industrial
Dispute Act ?-held-'No'-termination of 37
years services of respondents/workmen
working as electrician certainly falls
within
definition
of
workmanconsidering unfair treatment labor court
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
rightly
awarded
back
wages-No
interference by Writ Court call for.

Held: Para 9

It is by now well settled that educational
institutions
are
industries
but
its
teachers and teaching staff are not
workman. The respondent-workman was
an electrician in the institution and,
therefore, he was a workmen. Reference
be had to the judgment in the cases of
SCC
1988
(4)
Page
43
Miss
A.
Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa,
Daman and Diu and others and SCC 1996
(4) Page 225 Haryana Unrecognised
Schools'
Association
Vs.
State
of
Haryana. The respondent-workman was
an electrician in the institution and,
therefore, he was like skilled workers. In
such
circumstances,
the
contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot
be accepted in view of the decision
rendered in Bangalore Water Supply
(Supra)
itself
as
followed
in
the
subsequent
judgment
reported
to
hereinabove.
Case law discussed:
SCC 1978 Volume 2 Page 213; SCC 1988 (4)
Page 43; SCC 1996 (4) Page 225

## Text

1 All] Darul Uloom Deoband Saharanpur V. Labour Court and others
513
circular dated 15.10.1984 was in the
same pay scale as that of Valveman
(semi-skilled) in pay scale of Rs.210-290
could
be
termed
as
"financial
upgradation under the 'ACP Scheme'.

8. Admittedly both the posts were
in same pay scale prior to 15.10.1984,
under which two "financial upgradation"
were to be granted to the eligible
employees. The petitioner having been
provided the post of Pipe Fitter prior to
to the introduction of ACP Scheme
cannot be said to have been provided
'financial upgradation' under the said
scheme;From the records it is clear that
he has been granted only one 'financial
upgradation' after the ACP Scheme was
introduced i.e. to say that his pay/salary
under the scheme has increased once
though he was eligible for two such
financial upgradation.

9. From the clarification issued by
the Government of India also, it is
evident that if the feeder and the
promotional posts are in the same pay
scale the benefits under the ACP Scheme
has
to
be
allowed
ignoring
the
promotion.

10. The case laws cited by the
respondents
are
therefore
clearly
distinguishable.

11. For all the reasons stated above
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed
with costs of Rs.20,000/- in view of
Salem
Advocate
Bar
Association,
Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India and
others, AIR 2005 (SC) 3353

12. The orders dated 17.12.2004
passed by respondent Nos.1 and dated
31.7.2008 passed by respondent No.2 are
quashed.

13. The respondents are directed to
grant second "financial upgradation to
the petitioner under the ACP Scheme
with all consequential benefits to him
after fixing his pay in the pay scales of
Rs.5000-8000
from
1.1.1996
with
interest @ 6% p.a. till the date of actual
payments.

14. The order to be complied with
by the respondents within three months
from today.

15. No orders as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61774 of 2007

Darul Uloom Deoband Saharanpur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Sumati Rani Gupta
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Charitable Education Institution-whether
exumpted from provision of Industrial
Dispute Act ?-held-'No'-termination of 37
years services of respondents/workmen
working as electrician certainly falls
within
definition
of
workmanconsidering unfair treatment labor court
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
rightly
awarded
back
wages-No
interference by Writ Court call for.

Held: Para 9

It is by now well settled that educational
institutions
are
industries
but
its
teachers and teaching staff are not
workman. The respondent-workman was
an electrician in the institution and,
therefore, he was a workmen. Reference
be had to the judgment in the cases of
SCC
1988
(4)
Page
43
Miss
A.
Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa,
Daman and Diu and others and SCC 1996
(4) Page 225 Haryana Unrecognised
Schools'
Association
Vs.
State
of
Haryana. The respondent-workman was
an electrician in the institution and,
therefore, he was like skilled workers. In
such
circumstances,
the
contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot
be accepted in view of the decision
rendered in Bangalore Water Supply
(Supra)
itself
as
followed
in
the
subsequent
judgment
reported
to
hereinabove.
Case law discussed:
SCC 1978 Volume 2 Page 213; SCC 1988 (4)
Page 43; SCC 1996 (4) Page 225

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sumati Rani Gupta for the
respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner is a society running
an institution imparting religious education.
The services of the respondent No.2 were
dispensed with. An industrial dispute was
raised and the award has been passed in
favour of the workman. The petitioner has
challenged the said award on the ground
that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does
not apply in relation to such a charitable
institution which was imparting religious
education without charging any fee from its
students. A written statement was filed by
the petitioner-employer and a copy of the
same has been filed on record which has
also been reproduced in the award itself.

3. The respondent-workman also
contested the claim and evidence was led
and the reference was as to whether the
termination of the services of the petitioner
w.e.f. 19.4.2005 was illegal and if so to
what relief is the respondent-workman
entitled.

4. The dispute between the employer
and the respondent-workman was in
relation to holding of a fair enquiry as well.
It is evident from the record that as a matter
of fact neither any inquiry was held nor the
workman-respondent was confronted with
any evidence that was sought to be relied on
by the employer for the purpose of
terminating his services.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that if the Industrial Disputes Act
was itself not applicable, then the question
of holding an inquiry or raising an industrial
dispute does not arise for examination
before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondentworkman submits that the Industrial
Disputes Act does not grant any exemption
to such an institution. There was no inquiry
at all and the entire proceedings culminated
in the termination of the answeringrespondent in utter violation of principles of
natural justice. It is further submitted that
the answering respondent had served the
institution for more than 37 years and in the
absence of any valid reason termination of
his services was invalid and as such the
answering respondent was entitled for
reinstatement and payment of back wages.
1 All] Smt. Malika Jahan Ara Begum V. Abdul Rahim Khan (Now Dead) and others
515

7. The answering respondent has
admittedly retired and attained the age of
superannuation. In such circumstances the
petitioners have come up questioning the
award in relation to the payment to which
the respondent claims entitlement.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relying on the judgment in the
case of Bangalore Water Supply &
Sewerage Vs. A. Rajappa and others
SCC 1978 Volume 2 Page 213 contends
that such institutions are entirely exempted
from the purview of the Industrial Disputes
Act and hence the Labour Court committed
a manifest error by proceeding to construe
otherwise.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-workman has relied on the same
judgment to contend that the judgment does
not carve out any such exemption in favour
of the petitioner as such in these
circumstances the said plea of the petitioner
cannot be entertained.

9. It is by now well settled that
educational institutions are industries but its
teachers and teaching staff are not
workman. The respondent-workman was an
electrician in the institution and, therefore,
he was a workmen. Reference be had to the
judgment in the cases of SCC 1988 (4)
Page 43 Miss A. Sundarambal Vs.
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and
others and SCC 1996 (4) Page 225
Haryana
Unrecognised
Schools'
Association Vs. State of Haryana. The
respondent-workman was an electrician in
the institution and, therefore, he was like
skilled workers. In such circumstances, the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
cannot be accepted in view of the decision
rendered in Bangalore Water Supply
(Supra) itself as followed in the subsequent
judgment reported to hereinabove.

10. The respondent- workman has
been given an unfair treatment by not
holding any inquiry at all and in the
circumstances the labour court was fully
justified in awarding back wages to the
respondent. I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned award at all. The writ
petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64921 of 2010

Smt. Malika Jahan Ara Begum

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Rahim Khan (Now Dead) and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramendra Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Dixit

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226impleadment
application
after
1-1/2
years-while
similar
application
with
same grounds already rejected by Lower
Appellate Court-remained unchallengedcan not be entertained directly before
Writ Court.

Held: Para 5

It is also notable that even though the
present writ petition is pending since
24.10.2010, the impleadment application
has been filed by the applicant today i.e.
after more than 1-1/2 years without any
plausible explanation with regard to
delay. Thus, the impleadment application
filed at the last stage of the writ petition
without challenging the earlier order of
the
court
below
rejecting
the