Educational institutions are not industries within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and their employees are not workmen under the Act. Disputes relating to the service conditions of employees of educational institutions are to be resolved under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, and the Regulations made thereunder.

K.M. Yusuf, J.

1. THE President, the Secretary, the Headmaster and other Members of the Managing Committee of Tantia High School, Calcutta, have moved the writ application challenging the Memo dated 25th June, 1985 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, referring the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 5, Ram Saran Mahato, to an Industrial Tribunal under section 10 read with section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. THE petitioners case, in short, is that respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Peon by the then authority of the School in or about 1960. Before his suspension he used to draw a total remuneration of Rs. 575.45. During his service hours he used to come heavily drunk. THE Secretary received on 12th February, 1981 a complaint from the Assistant Secretary, Barabazar Library, in February 1981 on the occasion of Kavi Sammelon Utsav Day that seven pairs of shoes were stolen and the allegation was that during drunken state the said respondent handed over shoes to his own men. THE said respondent No. 5 admitted the guilt by his letter of 14th February, 1985 and prayed forgiveness on the undertaking that he would not repeat such act and if he did so in future the School authority would be at liberty to take any action against him. THE petitioners-state that being a full time class IV employee of the School the respondent No. 5 was not legally to take any part-time job in the said Library. On 20th February, 1981 the Headmaster wrote to respondent No. 5 asking explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his behaviour. THE following day the respondent No. 5 gave explanation that to the effect that he had already written in his letter of 14th February, 1981 the true facts and expressed his sorrow for the unfortunate incident and prayed for a chance to correct himself. By another letter dated 27th February, 1981 addressed to the Headmaster he again pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy. Again on the next day i.e. 28th August, 1981 he came on duty in the School heavily drunk and quarreled with the gate-keeper attracting a crowd. He was not in a state to stand and was ordered by the Headmaster to be removed to his residence by the gate-keeper. but he refused to go and ultimately he was physically put into a rickshaw. Following this incident the Headmaster again wrote to the respondent No. 5 of the 28th August, 1981 incident and asked him to show cause by 4th September, 1981 why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. By a letter dated 31st August, 1981 he again wrote to the Headmaster accepting his guilt and assured the Headmaster that he would not repeat the same in future. On 8th April, 1983 the Headmaster received a complaint from Shiwnath Tewari, the Accountant of the School, that he found the respondent No. 5 sitting in the School bus in a drunken condition. THE Headmaster on 9th April, 1983 referred the complaint to one S. K. Mookherjee, Assistant Teacher of the School, to make an enquiry. After making necessary enquiry a report was submitted to the Headmaster to the effect that the complaint of Shiwnath Tewari was correct. It was further stated that once Mr. Mookherjee himself found the respondent No. 5 in a drunken condition when the respondent No. 7, Jadu Nandan Singh, was trying to put him in a rickshaw. It was stated in the report that respondent No; 5 was a habitual alcoholic. By letter dated 8th April, 1983 the Headmaster suspended the respondent No. 5 till 16th April, 1983 and again by the letter of 14th April, 1983 the suspension was extended till 29th April, 1983. On 29th April, 1983 the Headmaster served a charge-sheet upon the respondent No. 5. THE decision of suspension of the petitioners and issuance of charge-sheet was approved by the Managing Committee on 30th April, 1983. By a reply to charge-sheet dated 4th May, 1983 the respondent refuted the 4th and 5th charges. According to the Secre