Negotiable Instruments: Exhaustive Coverage by Adv Roma Bhagat. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • According to the Gujarat High Court, a Wakf Board-registered institution that engages in commercial operations like publishing magazines in addition to providing religious education qualifies as a "industry" for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
  • It further stated that a "Maulvi" who is in charge of overseeing such commercial activity—in this case, overseeing all the printing supplies—is considered a "workman" under the Act and will therefore be subject to its rules regarding termination of service.
  • Justice Kogje noted that the Respondent had enrolled in the programme in April 1993 and afterwards changed his title to "Maulvi," or a religious leader.
  • The Bench noted that the Respondent was not given notice of the charges when they were brought against him in 2008, 11 years after he began working as a teacher.
  • It was expected of the petitioner institution to act in accordance with the law and provide opportunity by following principles of natural justice, and they must have an explanation regarding such serious claims if they were ready to act on the basis of them.
  • The Labour Court had correctly determined that the termination violated Section 25F of the ID Act, according to the Bench.
  • Additionally, the Petitioner-Institution failed to persuade the Court that it was an educational institution rather than a "enterprise." The institution was engaged in a number of endeavours, including the delivery of education and the publication of educational journals and books with subscriptions.
  • In addition to providing religious instruction, the institution that filed the petition also engaged in the publication of periodicals and educational materials. Additionally, the data demonstrates that the institution was obtaining subscriptions for these magazines.
  • The petitioner institution is registered with the Wakf board as a trust rather than as an educational institution.
  • The Labour Court correctly concluded that the petitioner institution is not an educational institution based on the activities in which the petitioner is participating and the lack of any recognition as an educational institution by any Government agencies.
  • As a result, the respondent a teacher.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  51  Report