Radhika Devi vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 January, 2009

                    Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 2000

       Against the Judgment dated 15/12/2005 passed in W.P. (L) No. 5989 of 2005.

       The Management of D.A.V. Public School, Jamadoba,
       Dhanbad..............................                                 Appellant

                                Versus
       Their Workman Shri Ram Dahin Roy..................                   Resppondent

                                           ......

For the Appellant : M/s. A.K.Mehta, Ananda Sen
For the Respondent : M/s Manish Kumar, Someshwar Roy
……

PRESENT
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad
JUDGMENT

By Court Whether a School can be said to be an Industry within the

meaning of Sec. 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the

question which was formulated by order dated 17/05/2006 for

consideration in this appeal? This question has already been decided

by the Supreme Court in the case of “Bangalore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board- versus- A. Rajappa And Others and analogous cases,

reported in (1978) 2 SCC 21”..

It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision that the charitable institutions, clubs, educational institutions,

municipalities, research institutes, cooperative societies are industries

within the meaning of Section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted this much only that the aforesaid question decided by

majority of the seven Judges Bench in “Bangalore Water Supply &

Sewerage Boar’s” case has been referred to a larger Bench for

reconsideration in the case of “State of U.P.- versus- Jai Bir Singh,
reported in (2005) 5 SCC 1” and, therefore, according to Mr. Mehta, this

appeal may await the decision of the Larger Bench of Supreme Court.

Unless the judgment in the Bangalore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board’s case is reversed by any subsequent decision, the

same is binding on us and, therefore, the question for consideration in

this appeal is covered by the decision passed in the case of Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board. No other point has been argued by

Mr. Mehta.

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal.

Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.

(Amareshwar Sahay, J)

(R.R.Prasad, J)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 13th January 2009
NAFR/Mukund