Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Virchow Laboratories Ltd.

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........material is not available as it has been used by the party. however, the learned counsel for respondent submits that at the appropriate time the material was available, but was not tested. the tribunal on coming to a conclusion that since the material was not tested for coming to a conclusion as to whether it was methanol or industrial waste, therefore it remanded the case back and gave the following direction :'concurring with the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration of the facts that the item has not been tested to ascertain the purity level, in line with the order referred to above, this matter is also remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. all the connected issues are kept open.'2. now, it is stated that it is not possible for the concerned authority to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with the direction of the tribunal, because the testing of the material is not at all possible as the material is not available. the learned counsel for respondent, however, submits that the tribunal did not ask the authorities to test the material. it merely remanded the case on the ground that the material had not been tested. be that as it may. we dispose of this reference with a direction to the concerned authority to dispose of the matter in accordance with law on the basis of evidence available before it, including the evidence that may now be put before it by the parties. the question of testing would not arise because the material, according to both the parties, is not at all available.3. the reference is accordingly disposed of. no order as to costs.