JUDGMENT 1. - This order shall govern the disposal of D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2005 Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra v. Judge Labour Court & Anr. and D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.117/2012 Smt. Sita Rani v. Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra & Anr. as both arise out of the same impugned order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5066/1996. 2. In short, the facts are these. The appellant Mook Badhir Balak or Balika Badhit Bal Vikas Kendra in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2005 is a registered Society. According to the appellant, its running an institution for deaf and dumb at Kota. The case of appellant is that it appointed Sita Rani (appellant in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.117/2012) on 1.1.1976 as teacher and at that time, the institution was not getting any aid from the Government. The appellant when started receiving aid, it beame necessary that Sita Rani must fulfil the qualification prescribed for the post of Teacher. But since Sita Rani did not fulfill the requisite qualification of Matric and training provided for the post of teacher, her services were discontinued w.e.f. 14.4.1982. 3. Aggrieved, Sita Rani preferred an appeal before the District Education Officer (Female), Kota under the provisions of Grant in Aid rules which was dismissed by order dated 8.2.1983 on the ground of limitation. Sita Rani then filed a civil suit for grant of injunction in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (South), Kota but it was withdrawn vide order dated 7.3.1984 after her application for temporary injunction was dismissed on merits. Sita Rani then initiated conciliation proceedings in the year 1989 before the Conciliation Officer wherein the appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of proceedings on the plea that Sita Rani being a teacher was not a 'workman'. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of appellant is further that even before the Labour Court, it raised a specific plea that as Sita Rani was a teacher, she did not come within the meaning of workman and, therefore, the labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 4. The case of appellant is further that even before the Labour Court, it raised a specific plea that as Sita Rani was a teacher, she did not come within the meaning of workman and, therefore, the labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 4. The Labour Court however, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties vide award dated 7.8.1996 without really deciding the objection regarding its jurisdiction directed for the reinstatment of Sita Rani with 50 per cent backwages on the ground that she was not given an opportunity of hearing before her removal and that provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947') were also not complied with. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5066/1996 which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed by modifying the award only to the extent of setting aside the direction regarding payment of 50 per cent back wages to Sita Rani. It is in this background, the appellant as well Sita Rani have filed these intra court appeals. 6. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Sita Rani was a teacher in the institution, the labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The learned counsel has also argued that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the material on record in right perspective. On the other hand, leanred counsel for Sita Rani has defended the validity of award. 7. In Miss. A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1700), it has been well settled that a teacher employed in school does not fall within the definition of expression "workman" though the school is an industry. The Supreme Court has also held that dispute regarding termination of service of teacher cannot be referred under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Sita Rani although stated before the Labour Court that she was appointed on the post of Craft Trainer, in her cross-examination categorically admitted that her appointment was made on the post of Craft Training Teacher. She has also admitted that for the post of teacher under the Government rules, minimum qualification is 10th Class pass, which she did not possess. Sita Rani although stated before the Labour Court that she was appointed on the post of Craft Trainer, in her cross-examination categorically admitted that her appointment was made on the post of Craft Training Teacher. She has also admitted that for the post of teacher under the Government rules, minimum qualification is 10th Class pass, which she did not possess. The termination order dated 14.4.1982 of Sita Rani also clearly states that since she did not possess the minimum qualification of teacher as required by the State Government Rules, her services were being discontinued. Even the Minutes of Meeting of appellant's Managing Committee also states that Sita Rani was working as teacher and she did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed by the State Government for the post of teacher. Thus, there is enough reliable evidence on record to hold that Sita Rani was a teacher in the petitioner-institution. Unfortunately the labour Court did not refer to these documents while passing the award. And the learned Single Judge also has not dealt with the specific admission of Sita Rani that she was appointed as teacher in the institution. The labour Court did not record any specific finding whether Sita Rani was a teacher or not and the learned Single Judge without discussion and assigning any reason whatsoever has observed in a cryptic manner that Sita Rani was not a teacher. This finding of the learned Single is apparently perverse. 8. Since Sita Rani was a teacher in the institution, we having regard to the decision of Supreme Court in Miss. A. Sundarambal (supra), set aside the award dated 07.08.1995 passed by the labour Court as the dispute could not have been referred under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 and the same is illegal being without jurisdiction. For the same reason, we also set aside the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) 158/2005 is allowed and D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.117/2012 is dismissed.D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 158 of 2005 allowed. D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 117 of 2012 dismissed. *******