CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent was admittedly an employee of the Corporation of City of Bangalore working as a Security Guard in the public relations-cum-welfare office of the Corporation which is termed as group 'd' post. While he was working as a Security Guard he remained absent unauthorised from 9. 5. 1984 onwards. A departmental enquiry was held after issuing show-cause notice and the enquiry officer held him guilty and dismissed him from served with effect from 9. 4. 84 after following the procedure as contemplated under the by its order dated 3. 8. 1987. The said order was questioned before the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee considered his case sympathetically and recommended to reinstate'him to the same position without backwages and also to treat his absence as leave without wages. However, the Commissioner of Bangalore City corporation did not find favour with this order and therefore referred the matter to the Corporation Council and the Council passed the order as per Annexure-C. The Corporation Council concurred with the decision of the Commissioner and he was dismissed from service. That order was questioned in Ref. No. 139/92 on the file of the 2nd additional labour Court, Bangalore. The petitioner herein raised three contentions before the labour Court namely (1) that the Bangalore city Corporation is not an industry and (2) that the respondent is governed by the KSCRs Rules and that therefore I. D. Act is not applicable and also on merit of the case. However, the labour Court after examining the materials placed before it vide order dated ( 2 ) 9. 1997 passed the award directing the petitioner to rein state the respondent to his original post with continuity of service and without backwages. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the Bangalore City Corporation is not an industry and that therefore the labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case filed by the respondent. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the Bangalore City Corporation is not an industry and that therefore the labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case filed by the respondent. ( 3 ) IN support of his arguments, he has relied on a decision endered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in THE CORPORATION of THE CITY OF NAGPUR vs ITS EMPLOYEES where in their lordships have held that following departments of the Nagpur corporation were governed by the Corporation Act: "tax Department, Public Conveyance Department, Fire brigade Department Lighting Department, Water Works department, City Engineer's Department, Enforcement (Encroachment) Department, Sewage Department, Health department, Market Department, Public Gardens Department, public Works Department, Assessment Department, Estates department, Education Department, Printing Press Department, building Department and General Administration Department," as stated above, this petitioner was working as a security Guard. The Security Department is not covered under the list stated above. In addition to that it is no doubt true that prior to coming into force of the Rules, the Bangalore City Corporation was governed by the karnataka Municipal Corporation (City of Bangalore) Rules,1984. Under those rules, KSCR Rules were made applicable to all the employees of the Corporation. Subsequently, this rules were repealed and the subsequent rules known as The Karnataka State Corporation employees (conditions and service) Rules, 1991 which came into force with effect from 3. 5. 1991 is now applicable. However, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent in the year 1984. Subsequently, this rules were repealed and the subsequent rules known as The Karnataka State Corporation employees (conditions and service) Rules, 1991 which came into force with effect from 3. 5. 1991 is now applicable. However, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent in the year 1984. But in view of the coming into force of the new rules, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that new rules is applicable to this case and he has also drawn by attention to sub-Rule (d) of rule 2 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Rules which reads thus:-"in these Rules unless the context otherwise requires:- (d) 'employee' means an officer or servant appointed by a city Corporation or other Competent Authority and includes absorbed in the services of the City Corporation;"these Rules will have to be read in conjection with sub-Rule (2) of Rules 2 of the Rules which reads as follows:" (2) All words and expressions used in these rules, but not defined shall have the same meaning signed to them in the karnataka Civil Services Rules, as amended, from time to time, provided that the expression "government servant (s)" "head of the Department (s)" "government" or/and the "governor wherever they occur in the rules mentioned in Rule 4 of these Rules shali respectively mean "employee" "commissioner or any of his nominee" "government in housing and urban Development department". In view of this definition and also expressions used the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is an employee as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute act and that therefore the said Act is applicable. ( 4 ) TO substantiate his arguments, he has also placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 (1) llj 101 where in their lordships of the Supreme Court following the judgment rendered in BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND sewerage BOARD vs A. RAJAPPA AND OTHERS have held that Municipal Corporation is an industry and all the employees in general Administration Department of Municipal Corporation would be employees in an industry. After considering the various provisions of law, their lordships have held as follows:-"the question was elaborately gone into in (1978-1-LLJ- 349) (SC) and the Court approved the decision in (1960-l-LLJ- 523) (SC) Where it was held that in view of the application of the twin tests namely (1) primary and predominant activity test, and (ii) the integrated activity test the Municipal Corporation was an "industry' and that, in particular, the employees in the Education department, the Health Department and the General administration Department were to be treated as working in an "industry" if they satisfy the definition of "workman" in the statute and they will be entitled in the statute and they will be entitled to seek a reference to the labour Court. "as indicated above, the respondent was working in the Security department. Security Department is not included in the KSCR Rules or in the judgment referred to above. Further, in view of the amendment to Municipal Corporation Rules, 1991, the respondent comes under the definition of an employee. Therefore, I hold that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the reference. In view this, kcsr is also not applicable as the B. C. C. itself is a special statute governing its employees in so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned. ' ( 5 ) COMING to the merits of the case, though the respondent wasun authorisedly absented for quite a long time, the Standing committee has considered the enquiry report and has come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for exoneration and also directed that the respondent should be reinstated. Only on the basis of the recommendation of the Commissioner, the Council decided to dismiss him from service. This aspect was considered by the Tribunal in detail and the directed the petitioner to reinstated him. The conduct of the respondent also clearly indicated that he was a good worker and he has not committed any irregularity Taking all these into consideration, I hold that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons. I hold that this Writ Petition has no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed confirming the order passed by the labour Court which is impugned in this Writ Petition. ( 7 ) NO order as to costs. --- *** --- .