1996 (4) TMI 485 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employee under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to enable the Government to fix their minimum wages? Held that - Applying dictum of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and others 1988 (7) TMI 405 - Supreme Court of India to the definition of employee under Section 2(i) of the Act it may be held that a teacher should not come within the said definition. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Act and the State Government in exercise of powers under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers. The impugned notifications dated 30th of April, 1983 so far as the teachers of the educational institution concerned are accordingly quashed. This appeal is allowed. Writ petition filed succeeds to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether teachers of an educational institution can be considered employees under the Minimum Wages Act for fixing minimum wages?

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by teachers of an educational institution regarding the fixation of minimum wages by the State Government. The main issue was whether teachers could be categorized as employees under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, allowing the Government to set their minimum wages. The State Government had added "Employment in private coaching classes, schools including Nursery Schools and technical institutions" to the Schedule to fix minimum wages for employees in such institutions. The High Court upheld the Government's power to add employment to the Schedule and mitigate exploitation of teachers, citing the Act's provisions and the need for social welfare legislation.

The appellant contended that teachers should not fall under the Act as their duties do not align with the Act's definition of an employee. The definition includes those employed for skilled or unskilled, manual, or clerical work, which teachers do not primarily perform. The State Government's authority to fix minimum wages for teachers was challenged based on this interpretation. The respondent argued that the Government acted to address exploitation by school managements and had the power to add specific employments to the Schedule under the Act.

The Supreme Court analyzed the Act's objectives, emphasizing the prevention of worker exploitation through minimum wage fixation. It noted that the Act applies to industries with inadequate wages due to unorganized labor or absence of wage regulation machinery. The Court highlighted the need for a beneficial interpretation of the Act while ensuring it applies only to intended employments. The Act empowers the Government to fix minimum wages for employees in specified employments listed in the Schedule or added by notification under Section 27.

The Court concluded that teachers of educational institutions do not fit the Act's definition of an employee as they do not perform skilled, unskilled, manual, or clerical work. It referenced a previous case to support this view, stating that teaching is a noble vocation and not manual or clerical labor. Therefore, the State Government lacked the authority to include teachers in the Act for minimum wage fixation. The impugned notifications concerning teachers were quashed, and the appeal was allowed, with the writ petition succeeding on this issue. No costs were awarded in the case.