( 1 ) THE appellant before us is working in the first-respondent Nagar Palika, Dehradun. He claimed that his services were terminated on october 31, 1987 without any prior notice or information or after holding a domestic enquiry, much less based on any reason and raised a dispute under the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court at Dehradun.

( 2 ) AFTER notice, the first respondent raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the labour Court to hear the matter on the ground that it is not an "industry" for the purpose of the Act and the appellant did not fall within the definition of "workmen". It is also contended that (i) there is a rule of the Nagar palika that two brothers cannot be employed to equivalent posts and the appellants brother was also working in a similar post held by the appellant; (ii) the appellant was a probationer on the date of his termination; he had been appointed on December 16, 1986, placed on probation for a period of one year and his services had been terminated on October 31, 1987. Before the expiry of that period his services had been put an end to. Hence the provisi