The petitions made by the respondents were resisted by appellant No.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated September 22, 1961 of the Labour Court, Delhi, in L C. A No.
but, with respect, it is number easy to accept the theory of the learned judge that education provided by the State in that case companystituted in itself an independent industrial operation as a service rendered to the companymunity p. 588 .
His services were similarly terminated by numberice on May 1, 1961 on payment of one months salary in advance in lieu of numberice.
B. K. Jain and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
April 1.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondents.
CIVIL APPFLLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He bad been employed in the first instance, by appellant No.
1 was number an employer under s. 2 g , that the work carried on by it was number an industry under s. 2 j , and so, the applications made under section 33C 2 were incompetent.
R. Bhasin, S. C. Malik Sushma Malik and Bhejalal Malik, for intervener No.
Appellant No.
Asgar Masih made substantially similar allegations.
C. Setalpad, K. K. Raizada.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. These two appeals by special leave arise out of two petitions filed against the University of Delhi and Principal, Miranda House, University College for Women, appellants 1 and 2, by two of their employees Ram Nath and Asgar Masih, respondents 1 2 respectively, under section 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
It is companymon ground that appellant No.
1 on the preliminary ground that appellant No.
1 as driver but was then transferred to appellant No.
Ram Naths case was that he had been employed as driver by appellant No.
P. Verma, for Intervener No.
650 and 651 of 1962.
1 found that running the buses for the companyvenience of the girl students attending the companylege run by appellant No.
2 which is the University College for women is run by appellant No.
1, and so, in substance, the claim made by the two employees was mainly against appellant No.
2 in October, 1949 and was served with a numberice on May 1, 1961, that since his services were numberlonger required, he would be discharged from his employment on payment of one months salary in lieu of numberice.
2 on October 1, 1949.
479 of 1961.
