LexMISS A. SUNDARAMBAL versus GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i A B c D MISS A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU & ORS. JULY 27, 1988 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Labour law-Industrial Disputes Act. 1947-Sections 2(s) and 2(j)-"Industry" and "workmen"-educational institution being "industry'', whether teachers employed therein would be "workmen''. The appellant was a school teacher and her services were termi- nated by the Management. She made several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled but without success. Ultimately she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the Act. The conciliation ptoceedings failed and the conciliation officer reported accordingly to the Government. The Government considered the ques- tion of referring the matter for adjudication under section IO of the Act. ' But on reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not a 'workman' as defined in the Act, it declined to make a reference. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court for issue of a Writ Of Mandamus requiring the Government to make a reference under section lO(l)(c) of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the E validity of the termination of her services. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the appellant was not a workman. This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, F HELD: .i. l Even though an educational institution has. to be treated as an industry the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post graduiite education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of ~ction 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled' G or unskilled manna! wol1k 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, bnilds up theit 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 princi- H pal work of teaching. [608B-C; 610A-C] 604 I A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVT. OF GOA 605 1.2 If an employee in an industry is not a person engaged in doing work falling in any of the categories as mentioned in Section 2(s) of the Act, he would not he a workman at all even-though he is employed in an industry. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s) of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of this argument will render the words 'to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work' meaningless. A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible only in the.absence of these words. [609C-D; 61 IC-E] Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa & Others, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 207, relied on. (2) University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath, [1964] 2 SCR 703 and May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Wrokmen, [1961] 11 L.L.J. 94 referred to. 2. Teachers as a class cannot be denied the benefits of social justice. It is necessary to provide for an appropriate machinery so that teachers may secure what is rightly due to them. In a number of States A B c D in India laws have been passed for enquiring into the validity of illegal and unjust terminations of service of teachers by providing for appoint- ment of judicial tribunals to decide such cases. It is time that State of E Goa takes necessary steps to bring into force legislation providing for adjudication of disputes between teachers and the Managements of edu- cational institutions. [611F-G] · [At the instance of this Court, the Management of the School agreed to pay the appellant Rs.40,000 which this Court directed to be paid F in 6 monthly instalments commencing from September, 1988.] [6128] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1776 (NL) of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.1983 of the High Court, G of ·Bombay in Special Civil Application No. 59 of 1983 Dr. Y.S. Chitale and V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant. G .B. Pai, Parveen Kumar and Vivek Ghambir for the Res- pondents. H A B 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 1 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.