A. SUNDARAMBAL V. GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU AIR 1988 SC 1700
FACTS
The appellant, Miss A. Sundarambal, was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary at Caranzalem, Goa. Her services were terminated by the Management by a letter dated 25th April, 1975. After she failed in her several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled, she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the Act.
The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu by his letter dated 2nd May, 1982.
The Government considered the question whether it could refer the matter for adjudication under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act but on reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not a ‘workman’ as defined in the Act which alone would have converted a dispute into an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k) of the Act, it declined to make a reference.
Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to make a reference under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services. That petition was opposed by the respondents.
After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not a workman by its judgment dated 5th September, 1983. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
ISSUE
Whether the school, in which the appellant was working, was an industry, and
Whether the appellant was a ‘workman’ employed in that industry.
CASE REFERRED TO
The decision in University of Delhi v. Ram Nath [AIR 1963 SC 1873] came up for consideration in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa [AIR 1978 SC 548] before a larger bench of this Court. In that case the decision in University of Delhi was overruled. Krishna Iyer, J. who delivered the majority judgment observed (at 596) thus:
“(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves, employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not ‘workmen’ as in the University of Delhi Case or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur, will be true test. The whole undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those who are not ‘workmen’ by definition may not benefit by the status.”
The learned Judge, however, observed that while an educational institution was an industry it was possible that some of the employees in that industry might not be workmen.
Thus it is seen that even though an educational institution has to be treated as an industry in view of the decision in the Bangalore Water Supply, the question whether teachers in an educational institution can be considered as workmen still remains to be decided.
HELD
In order to be a workman, a person should satisfy the following conditions:
he should be a person employed in an industry for hire or reward;
he should be engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and
he should not be a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e. (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of ‘workman’ in section 2(s) of the Act.
The definition also provides that a workman employed in an industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, an industrial dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.
The question for consideration before us is whether a teacher in a school falls under any of the four categories, namely, a person doing any skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If he does not satisfy any one of the above descriptions he would not be a workman even though he is an employee of an industry as settled by this Court in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen [AIR 1967 SC 678].
In that case this Court had to consider the question whether a person employed by a pharmaceutical firm as a representative (for canvassing orders) whose duties consisted mainly of canvassing orders and any clerical or manual work that he had to do was only incidental to his main work of canvassing could be considered as a workman as defined in the Act.
The Court observed that teachers as a class cannot be denied the benefits of social justice. We are aware of the several methods adopted by unscrupulous management to exploit them by imposing on them unjust conditions of service. In a number of States in India laws have been passed for enquiring into the validity of illegal and unjust terminations of services of teachers by providing for appointment of judicial tribunals to decide such cases.
The State of Goa has no such Act in force and thus must take necessary steps to bring into force an appropriate legislation providing for adjudication of disputes between teachers and the Managements of the educational institutions. We hope that this lacuna in the legislative area will be filled up soon.
The appeal, however, failed and it was dismissed. Before we conclude we record the statement made on our suggestion by the learned counsel for the Management, Shri G.B. Pai that the Management would give a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant in full and final settlement of all her claims. The learned counsel for the appellant has agreed to receive Rs. 40,000/- accordingly.