BHARATI SAPRU, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the against an award of the Labour Court dated 22. 7. 1988 passed in adjudication case No. 24 of 1987. The order of reference was as hereinbelow: KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA APNE SHRMIK LAKSHMI CHANDRA PUTRA SRI shamanti SINGH TUBEWELL OPERATOR KE SEWAYEN DINANK 25. 8. 1984 SE samapt KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/athwa VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI, TO sambandhit SHRMIK KYA LAB/upsum (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA anya KIS VIVRAN SAHIT? ( 2 ) WHILE answering the said reference, the Labour court examined the issue as to whether the school in which the petitioner was working, was an industry or not? ( 3 ) LABOUR Court has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that a school was not an industry. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, daman and Diu and Ors. AIR1988 SC 1700 , JT1988 (3 )SC 121 , 1989 lablc1317 , (1989 )I LLJ61 SC , 1988 (2 )SCALE82 , (1988 )4 SCC42 , [1988 ]supp1 SCR604 , 1989 (1 )SLJ61 (SC ), 1988 (2 )UJ329 (SC ) that a school is an industry. In this case, the honble Supreme Court has held that a teacher is not a workman but class III and IV staff working in a school would definitely be covered within the definition of workman and held that the school was an industry. ( 4 ) THUS the Labour Court has wrongly said that the school is not an industry. This finding of the labour Court in its award dated 22. 7. 1988 is wrong and is liable to be set aside. However while answering the reference, the Labour Court has also noticed the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was a probationer whose term was extended thrice and while he was on his third period of probation, he was removed because he was not upto the mark. Labour Court has also recorded that the workman was given one month notice pay and other dues and the same were accepted by the workman. The finding of the Labour Court with regard to the cessation of services of the petitioner as probationer is perfectly correct. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the respondents. The finding of the Labour Court with regard to the cessation of services of the petitioner as probationer is perfectly correct. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that because the Labour Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that school was not an industry, it could not have proceeded in the matter on merits. This is a technical objection. The Labour Court is a Court of referred jurisdiction and has therefore rightly answered the reference and has examined the whole issue in hand and in the present case has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners service came to an end at the end of his third probationary period and therefore the Labour Court has not granted any relief to the workman after examining the matter on merits. ( 7 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record of the case, I also come to the conclusion that the award of the Labour Court on merits is correct and does not calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is devoid of Merit and is, therefore dismissed. No costs. . .