(1) DELAY condoned. Special leave granted.

(2) HEARD counsel on both sides. We find that the High court has proceeded on a wrong footing that the District Rural Development Agency is an industry, and since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not complied with, the termination of the services of the respondent-employee was invalid. The High court has also erred in directing regularisation of the employee in the service.

(3) ACCORDING to us, the District Rural Development Agency is only entrusted with the work of carrying on different schemes entrusted to it including the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. Hence it cannot be described as industry within the meaning of the Act or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the provisions of the said statutes do not apply to the facts of the present case. The High court should, therefore, decide the question falling for consideration in the present case on the basis that the provisions of the said statutes are not applicable. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the division bench of the High court for decision accordin