B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the award of the Labour Court dated 17th April, 1990 whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate Dr. K. S. Durrany, respondent No. 3 with full back wages. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 was a highly qualified person holding the degrees of M. A. and Ph. D. It appears that he applied to the petitioner and was vide letter dated 25th September 1980 appointed as a Research fellow. The petitioner is a deemed university and accordieg to the terms of the said letter, respondent No. 3 was to get Rs. 1300. 00 per month consolidated for a period of two years. He was also get accommodation at 10 per cent of the consolidated salary plus Rs. 5. 00 for water charges. The work which was to be done by the petitioner was also set out in the said letter and it was as follows : "you will be responsible for doing your own research during the tenure of the Fellowship and will also bs guiding research, and helping in the administration of the Department and publication of the Department s quarterly under the direction of the Head of the Department. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to this letter the appointment of respondent No. 3 was for a period of two years. The letter further stated that on completion of term of fellowship, respondent No. 3 could be considered for permanent appointment in a graded salary. It seem that an extension was granted to respondent No. 3 but subsequently vide letter dated 15th March 1983, respondent No. 3 was informed that his services were no longer required by the petitioner Thereafter the Delhi Admn. REFERRED TO dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court. The term of reference was as follows: "whether the termination of Shri K. S. Durrany is Illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is h" entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?" ( 4 ) AFTER the pleadings had been completed, a number of Issues were framed. These were as follows : "1. Whether respondent management IHMMR and IIIS are not industry ? O. P. W. 2. Whether the petitioner is workman ? O. P. M. 3. These were as follows : "1. Whether respondent management IHMMR and IIIS are not industry ? O. P. W. 2. Whether the petitioner is workman ? O. P. M. 3. Whether the relief against the management of IHMMR is maintainable 7 O. P. W. 4. As per terms of reference. 5. Relief. " ( 5 ) AS is evident from the Issues as framed, two main contentions which were raised by the petitioner, were that it was an industry and, secondly respondent No. 3 was not a workman. The Labour Court further seeing all the facts on the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an industry and that respondent No. 3 was a workman. The other issues were also decided against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No. 3 with full back wages. ( 6 ) THE main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that looking at the duties of respondent No. 3, he cannot regarded as a workman. According to the learned Counsel the function and duties of respondent No. 3 are akin to that of a teacher and even if we assume that the petitioner is an industry nevertheless respondent No. 3 cannot be regarded as a workman. The learned Consel for the responent however contends that the function which was being performed by respondent No. 3 clearly showed that he was a workman. In this connection reliancr is placed on the testimony of MW-2 who was a Director of Management of the petitioner, who had stated that respondent No. 3 was made to enagage in the following jobs : " (1) Reading proofs of publications. (ii) Editing Indexes of DCR. (iii) Maintaining Press clippings. (iv) Organising academic activities. (v) Drafting research proposals. (vi) Maintaining correspondence. (vii) Doing translation from one language to another. (viii) Several unskilled jobs. (ix) and all that was directed by the supervisor. " ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent also relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, 1983 (4) SCC 214 and Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable Pvt. India Ltd. , 1984 (2) SCC 569 and his contended that on correct interpretation of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, respondent No. 3 has to be regarded as a workman. The submission of the learned Counsel is that respondent No. 3 was discharginn functions which were not supervisory in nature and he was a skilled workman and has held by the Supreme Court that Section 2 (s) has to be given a very wide interpretation, keeping in view the scope of the intenation of the legislation. Reliance was also placed on Arm Mills L. t. d v. Dr. Chandraprasad, 1976 Gujrat Law Reports 291 wherein it was held that a doctor employed by an organisation could also be regarded as workman. ( 8 ) THE nature and duties of respondent No. 3 have, to our mind, initially to be seen from the letter dated 25th September, 1980. An analysis of the functions which were to be performed as per the said letter, the relevant portions which have been quoted hereinabove, clearly shows that the work of respondent No. 3 was academic in nature. Apart from showing that respondent No. 4 had a tenure of two years with the petitioner it H clearly stated that during this tenure of fellowship, respondent No. 3 will be doing his own research. ( 9 ) RESEARCH of course is usually for the benefit of mankind but when it is successfully carried out it primarily and essentially brings credit to the researcher various Nobel Laureates have achieved distinction in sciences through research which was carried out by them. In the very nature of things research means bringing out a creative work. It is difficult for us to comprehend as to how a highly qualified post graduate research fellow can possibly be regarded as a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. The research which is carried out is not a function of the institute which is being discharged by respondent No. 3. The letter of 25th September 1980 further states that during the fellowship, respondent No. 3 will also be guiding researcher. It is clear that like a highly qualified academician this letter postulated respondent No. 3 giving guidance to research scholars. It is not in dispute that prior to 25th September, 1980 respondent No. 3 had been a Reader in Gujrat Vidyapeeth. Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a publication by respondent No. 3 called "religion and Society". It is clear that like a highly qualified academician this letter postulated respondent No. 3 giving guidance to research scholars. It is not in dispute that prior to 25th September, 1980 respondent No. 3 had been a Reader in Gujrat Vidyapeeth. Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a publication by respondent No. 3 called "religion and Society". This was a publication under the auspices of the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies and the publication is a result of the research which was carried out by respondent No. 3 during his tenure with the petitioner. In the brief bio data of respondent No. 3 it was indicated that he was a lecturer in Gujrat University in the year 1963-64 and in Udaipur from 1967-1972. Thereafter he became a Reader in Gujrat Vidyapeeth from January 1973 to 14th June, 1975. It is thus clear thatrespondent No. 3 was, previously, taking regular classes and teaching the students and, therefore, vide. letter dated 25th September 1980 he was also given the task of "guiding research Further duties which were assigned to respondent No. 3 by the said letter was that of helping the administration of the department and the publication of the departments s quarterly under the direction of the Head of the Department. ( 10 ) SEEING the aforesaid terms contained in the letter dated 25th September; 1980 and also the jobs which were assigned to him as per the testimony of MW-2, we have no manner of dobut the academic work which was being carried out by respondent No. 3 was similar to a work which could be carried out by a teacher and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Sundarambalv. Govt. of Goa, Daman and. Diu, 1988 (4) SCC 42 would be clearly applicable to the present case. The decisions relied upon by Shri Anand can have no application in the present case in view of the nature of duties being performed by respondent No. 3. In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundarambal (supra) it has been categorically stated that it is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions, should be treated as workman. In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundarambal (supra) it has been categorically stated that it is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions, should be treated as workman. In Sundarambal s case the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in the case of May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their workman. A. IR 1967 SCC 678 and in our opinion these two decisions are clearly applicable to the present case. The functions of respondent No. 3 were purely academic in nature and he should not be regarded as a workman within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was, therefore, in our opinion, wrong in coming to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was a workman. In view of this conclusion of ours it is not necessary for us to decide to the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner or the other issues decided by the Labour Court. It is also not necessary For us to deal with other prayers in the writ petition, namely, that the amended defination approved by the Parliament of the word "industry" should be brought into force. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is allowed. The award dated 17th April, 1990 of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is quashed and the reference made by the Delhi Administration is. therefore answered in favour of the petitioner before us. The effect of this is that the interim order stand vacated and if any money has been paid or deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition persuant to the award then the petitioner is entitled to the restitution thereof. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed,