Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; and s. 2(g)(ii) provides that an employer means in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that authority. If the work of imparting education is • an industry, the University of Delhi may have to be regarded as an employer within the meaning of s. 2 (g). Section 2 (j) defines an 'industry' as meaning any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. It is unnecessary to comment on this definition, because the precise scope of this definition is the very subject matter of the dispute which we are considering. That takes us to the definition of "workman" prescribed by s. 2 (s). A workman under the said definition means, inter alia, any person, including an apprentice, employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. It is common ground that teachers employed by educational institutions, whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, collegiate or postgraduate education, are not workmen under s. 2(s), and so, it follows that the whole body of employees with whose co-operation the work of imparting education is carried on by educational institutions do not fall within the purview of s. 2(s), and any disputes between them and the institutions which . employed tqem are outside the scope of the Act. In other words, if imparting education is an industry under s. 2(j), the bulk of the employees being outside the purview of the Act, the only disputes which can fall within the scope of the Act are those which arise between such institutions and their subordinate staff, the members of which may fall under s. 2(s). In our
