Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava holding brief of Sri S.M. Dayal, Counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.C. Jhingan for workman-respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner is an educational Scientific, Research Training Institute and claims to be exempted from the purview of industry within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is claimed that petitioner institute is a society registered under Societies Registration Act for providing instructions and research in engineering, technology, pure and applied sciences and other branches of learning and dissemination of knowledge in science and technology.

3. The workman concerned was appointed as attendant in the hostel from 9.7.1984 to 5.8.1985. His letter of appointment shows that appointment of the respondent was purely on temporary basis and according to its terms and conditions, his appointment could be terminated at any time by one month notice or one month salary in lieu thereof.

4. As services of the respondent workman were not required by the petitioner, they were terminated on 5.8.1985 after giving one month’s notice in terms of his letter of appointment. Conciliation proceedings having failed, aggrieved the workman raised an industrial dispute and the following reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), U.P., Kanpur :

“KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK ANIL KUMAR SAVITA (PUTRA SHRI SOMNATH SAVITA) ATTENDANT Kl SEWAYEN ADESH DINANK 5.8.85 DWARA SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT EVAM/TATHA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHIN, TO SHRAMIK KYA LABH/ANUTOSH RELIEF PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI, EVAM KISI, ANYA VIVRAN KE SATH.”

5. Before the labour Court, the parties filed their respective written as well as rejoinder statements. The undisputed fact in the written and rejoinder statement of the parties, are that the workman had been appointed on 9.7.1984 as a temporary employee and that his services were terminated with effect from 5.8.1985 in terms of his letter of appointment. In his written statement the workman has, however, claimed that though his appointment was on temporary basis but he was appointed against a permanent nature of post and his termination of services being in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, hence it was prayed that he may be reinstated on the post with continuity of service and full back wages. Paragraph 4 and 5 of written statement of the workman may be quoted here which is his case in nutshell. Paragraph 4 and 5 of written statement of the workman, are as under :

“4. That the applicant served the opposite party concern upto 5.8.1985 i.e. from 9.7.1984 to 5.8.1985 for more than a year and as such provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came in operation in the case of the applicant.

5. That the services of the applicant were terminated by an order dated 5.8.85 without fulfilling the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the said termination of service was illegal and unjustified.”

6. Case of the employer-petitioner is that even a temporary appointment can be made on a permanent post and appointment of the incumbent would be governed by the terms and conditions of appointment; that under clause (2) of his appointment letter, services of the respondent workman could be terminated at any time by one month notice and they have terminated services of the respondent workman after making said payment. It is also their case that petitioner is not a trade or profession and does not indulge in any business of profit rather it is purely a research and scientific institute working on the principle of, no profit and no loss. It also imparts education of technology to young students for advancement of technology.

7. It is emphatically urged by the Counsel for petitioner that clause 13 of the Conduct Rules and bye-laws of the society, provides that :

“Any matter not covered by