1988 (7) TMI 405 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a teacher employed in a school falls within the definition of the expression workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947? Held that - Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educates children he moulds their character builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical work if any they may do is only incidental to their principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court for taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as workmen as defined under the Act. Thus the High Court was right in holding that the appellant was not a workman though the school was an industry in view of the definition of workman as it now stands. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the school in which the appellant was working was an industry.
2. Whether the appellant was a 'workman' employed in that industry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the School was an Industry:
The first issue to be addressed is whether the school in which the appellant was employed qualifies as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court referenced the case of University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath, where it was held that educational institutions do not fall within the definition of 'industry' as per section 2(j) of the Act. However, this decision was later overruled in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa & others, where it was determined that educational institutions could be considered as industries. Despite this, the judgment noted that the status of teachers as 'workmen' was still unresolved.

2. Whether the Appellant was a 'Workman':
The core issue revolves around whether the appellant, a teacher, qualifies as a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of 'workman' includes individuals employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical, or clerical work for hire or reward. The Court examined whether the role of a teacher fits into any of these categories.

The Court referred to the precedent set in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, which emphasized that the nature of duties, rather than the designation, determines whether an individual is a 'workman'. The duties of a teacher, primarily involving the imparting of education, do not constitute manual, supervisory, technical, or clerical work. The Court concluded that teaching is a noble vocation and cannot be classified under the categories mentioned in section 2(s).

The Court further noted that while educational institutions may be considered industries, teachers do not fall under the definition of 'workman'. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen precludes a liberal interpretation that would include teachers as 'workmen'.

Conclusion:
The High Court's decision that the appellant was not a 'workman' was upheld. The Court acknowledged the need for social justice for teachers and recommended the enactment of appropriate legislation to address disputes between teachers and managements in educational institutions. The appeal was dismissed, but the Court facilitated a settlement where the Management agreed to pay the appellant Rs 40,000 in six installments.

Separate Judgments:
No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case. The judgment was a unified decision.

Final Order:
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Management was directed to pay the appellant Rs 40,000 in six installments as part of the settlement.