JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Review, of my judgment dated 4.1.2005 has been sought by the respondent-workman. Sri B.N. Singh appearing for the respondent-workman has urged that there is error apparent on the face of record in the following findings recorded by this Court:
The respondent-workman is neither a Government servant not an industrial worker and is not covered under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The aforesaid Act is a special Act dealing with specific subject, namely, the condition of service enumerated in Schedule-I of the Act, 1946. Since the petitioner was not an industrial worker, the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 did not apply to the educational institution of the petitioner under the aforesaid Act.
2. Sri Singh has relied upon paragraph 47 of the award wherein it has been stated that from the "aforesaid, provisions", it is clear that before imposition of proposed punishment, the workman was entitled for a notice to defend himself and in case no such notice is issued, the order of punishment cannot be treated to be justified. Paragraph 17 which is in Devnagri Hindi, is quoted below:
Uprokta Pravidhan se spastha hai ki prastavit dand ka adesh parit kiye June ke purva shramik ko ek notice us prastavit dand ke birudh kuch kahane ka avsar diya jana avashyak hai aur yadi aisa nahin kiya jata to dandadesh jo is niyam ke palan ko kiye bagair kiya jata hai wah dandadesh nyaysangat nahin mana ja sakta hai.
3. The 'aforesaid provisions' referred to in paragraph 17 above are contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the award. In paragraph 15, ii has been stated that the workman has relied upon Clause 27-C of the Standing Orders and had urged that he was entitled to a show cause notice before passing of the impugned older of punishment. In paragraph 16 of the award, it has been staled that since no certified Standing Orders were framed by the employers, the Model Standing Orders would apply. Thereafter the Labour Court had quoted the provisions of Clause 27-C relied upon by the workman. In the proviso to Clause 27-C it is provided that a proviso has been added to the effect that in the case of a workman to whom the provision of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution applies, the provisions of that Article shall be complied with.
4. The other contention of Sri B.N. Singh, counsel for the workman is that the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is para materia to Section 6-(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted in the case and the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded to the workman, hence it had the powers to scrutinize whether the punishment awarded to the workman was disproportionate to the charges or not. He submits that in the circumstances, the matter should have been remanded back to the Labour Court afresh, in the light of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Since this Court has come, to the conclusion that the aforesaid provisions would not apply, the matter could not be remanded back to the Labour Court for decision under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employee was appointed in examination department of an educational institution. Certain employees may be industrial workers even in an educational institution and some part of the others may not. The Model Standing Orders or the Industrial Employment Standing Orders would not apply to every establishment which is not covered by it.
6. The judgment was passed after looking into the award and pleadings of the parties and it was held hat the workman was neither a Government servant nor an industrial worker, and was not covered under the the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as such the provisions of Model Standing Orders would not apply nor Article 311(2) of the Constitution would be attracted.
7. No other point was argued.
8. No case for review has been made out. The review application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.