UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. versus RAM NATH

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 01-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
709 
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANP. 
v. 
RAM NATH 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Bus drivers in employ of university-
Whether "workera"-Education institution, if an 'industry' 
-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), sP. 2 (g), 2 (j) 
2 (s), 33c (2). 
Appellant No, _I, the University of Delhi and Appellant 
No. 2 Miranda House, a college affiliated to the University, 
are institutions for education, the predo1ninent activities of 
these being the imparting of education. At the material time 
respondent No. l was employed as bus driver under appellant 
No. 2. Both the respondents were discharged from service by 
giving separate notices and on payment of one xnonth's salary 
each in lieu of notice. The respondents by separate petitions 
appli<d before the 
Industrial Tribunal for 
the award of 
retrenchment benefits. The appellants resisted the petitions on 
the preliminary ground 
that they did 
not constitute an 
"industry" under s. 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
and that they were not "employees" under s. 2 (g} of the said 
Act and therefore the application made by the respondents 
under s. 33 (c) (2) of the Act were incompetent. The Tribu-
nal rejected this contention and after considering the merits 
passed an order in favour of the respondents directing the 
appellants to pay Rs. 1050/- to each one of respondents as 
retrenchment compensation. 
The appellants appealed to this Court with special leave. 
They contended in the appea] that the TribunaJ was in error 
in giving 
the definition of the word "industry" under 1. 2 (j) 
its widest denotation by adopting a mechanical and literal rule 
of construction and it was urged that the policy of the Act 
clearly is to leave educational institutions out of the·purvicw 
of the Act. The respondents' contention was that s. 2 ( j) had 
defined the word "indmti y" in words of widest amplitude and 
there is no justification for putti11g any artificial restraint on 
the meaning of the said word a> defined, 
1963 
Abril I 
1963 
linit•lfJifJ nf ndhi 
•• 
Ham ,\'ath 
• 
'70i SUPREl\ilE COURT REPORTS [1964] vat. 
]/,/d that having regard to the fact that the work of 
education is primarily and exclusively carried on with the 
assistance of the labvur and co-operation 
of teacher!, the 
non-inclusion of the \\'hole class of teachers from the definition 
prescribed bys. 2 (s) has an important bearing and significance 
in relation to the problem 
under consideration. It could not 
have been the policy of the Act that education should l>e 
treated as industry for the benefit of a very minor and insigni-
ficant number of persons who may be employed hy educational 
institution5 to carry on the duties of the subordinate staff. 
Readings. 2 (g), (j) and (s) together it is reasonable to hold 
that the work of education carried on by au educational 
institution like the University of Delhi is not 
an indumy 
within the meaning of the Act. 
In the main scheme of imparting education, the subordi-
nate staff with function like those of the respondents play such 
a minor, subsidiary and insignificant pare that it would not be 
reasonable to allow the work of this subordinate stalT to lend its 
industrial colour to the principal accivity of che University 
which is in1parting education. 
From a rational point of view 
it would be regarded as inappropriate to describe education 
cvr.n as a profession. 
l;',ducatiou in its true as~ct is more of ;1 
mission and a vocation rather than a profession 
or trade or 
business, however \vide may be the denotation of the two lattc:r 
words under the Act. 
The appellants cannot be regarded as carrying on an 
industry under s. 2 ( j ) and so the application made by the 
respondents against them under '· 33c (2) of the Act are held 
to be incompetent. 
State of Bombay v. 1'he Hospital .\fazdoor Sabha [1960) 
2 S. C. R. 8Gf., folil llari Ayurvedic College Pharmacy, l'ili-
hhit. v. La/it Hari Ayun-edic College l'harmacy IVorkers Union, 
Pilibhit, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 1261, The Ahmedahad Textile 
lnduslr.~'• Re"•arch As .. ociation '"The Stale of Jlomhay, [1961] 
2 S. C.R. 481, The Federated Stat•; School Teachers' A• .. ocia-
tion of Australia v. State of Victoria, [ 1929) 41 C. L. R. 569 
and 1'he Corporation of the City of NIV)pur v. It" Employe"', 
[1960) 2 S. C.R. 942, Case-Jaw reviewed. 
CrvrL APPELLATE JumsnWTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 650 and 651 of 1962. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.