( 1 ) AT the outset, this Court would like to refer certain important observations made by the Honble apex court in case of Consumer Education and Research Centre and others versus Union of India and Others reported in 1996 (72) FLR 479 para 22 and 24 at page 18 are reproduced as under:"22. THE jurisprudence of personhood or philosophy of the right to life envisaged under Article 21, enlarges its sweep to encompass human personality in its full blossom with invigorated health which is a wealth to the workman to earn his livelihood to sustain the dignity of person and to live a life with dignity and equality. 24. The expression life assured in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. . . "

( 2 ) RULE. Learned advocate Mr. S. D. Suthar for Mr. N. K. Majmudar waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - workman. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chudgar on behalf of M/s Nanavati Associates appearing for University Granth Nirman Board - original petitioner - applicant herein and learned