Sundarambal vs Government of Goa , Daman & Diu, AIR 1988 SC 1700

CITATION	AIR 1988 SC 1700
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	July 27, 1988
COURT	Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER	Miss A. Sundarambal
RESPONDENT	Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and Ors.
BENCH	SEN, A.P. (J)ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

INTRODUCTION

In Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, the question of whether or not a teacher employed by a school falls under the definition of a Workman for purposes of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, was raised. It also focuses on the question of whether or not the school is an industry covered by the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947. Workman refers to anyone (including an apprentice) engaged in physical, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory labor in any business for pay or reward, regardless of whether the terms of employment are stated or implicit.

FACTS

The appellant in this case, Miss A. Sundarambal, worked as a teacher at the Caranzalem, Goa, school run by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary. Her employment was terminated by management on April 25, 1975.

She then brought up an employment conflict before the conciliation officer, but the process was unsuccessful due to government reports that claimed the appellant was not a workman under the terms of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which is required to classify a dispute as an employment dispute. As a result, the conciliation officer rejected the reference.

 According to a writ petition the appellant filed with the High Court, the legislature must bring the matter to a Labour Court under section 10(1)(c) of the Act in order for the appellant’s services to be terminated legally.  The petition was denied by the High Court on the grounds that the applicant was not a worker. This appeal by special leave challenges the High Court’s ruling. The appellant then requested special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE 

1. Whether a school can be considered as an industry and whether or not it will come under the purview of the Industrial Dispute Act, of 1947?
2. Can the appellant, a school teacher, be considered as a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

RULE

1. Sec 2(s) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: Workman refers to any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to perform manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or incentive, whether the terms of employment are express or implied. For the purposes of any proceeding under this Act relating to an industrial dispute, this definition also includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in connection with, or as a result of, that dispute, or whose employment was terminated because of, that dispute

2. Sec 2(j) ) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: The industry encompasses any contact, services, and job opportunities handicraft, industrial profession, or avocation of workmen. It also covers any business, trade, enterprise, manufacture, or calling of employers.
3. Sec 10(1)(c) ) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: Refer any matter that appears to be linked to or relevant to the dispute to a labor court for resolution if it relates to a topic listed in the Second Schedule.

PETITIONERS ARGUMENT

Three ideas were put out before the Apex Court by Mr. Sonak, a qualified Advocate who was representing the petitioner. First, he argued that the authority to make a referral granted to the competent Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not involve the authority to determine whether or not a certain person is a workman.

In reality, the Government had brought up an employment dispute concerning the dismissal of a teacher under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Government is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by refusing to refer the petitioner’s case, and the Government is restrained from arguing that a teacher is not a worker.

Thirdly, Mr. Sonak contended that the petitioner actually qualifies as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. These claims will be looked at in that order.

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT

The Respondents denied all of the petitioner’s assertions, contending that the competent government has the authority to determine whether a person is a workman for the purposes of this case prima facie, that the estoppel doctrine is inapplicable, and that teachers do not meet the definition of a workman under Section 2(s).

ANALYSIS

Workman refers to anyone (including an apprentice) engaged in physical, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory labor in any business for pay or reward, regardless of whether the terms of employment are stated or implicit.

In University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath, a bench of three learned Supreme Court judges determined that Miranda House, a college affiliated with the University of Delhi, would not fall under the definition of the term “industry” as it is used in section 2(j) of the Act. According to the definition of “industry” in Section 2(j) of the Act, this term refers to any business, trade, enterprise, manufacture, or calling of employers as well as any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial activity or avocation of workers. The court held that educational institutions whose primary function was instruction could not be deemed industries within the sense of the aforementioned phrase in section 2(j) of the Act.

In the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa & others, the aforementioned judgement was up for discussion. The judgement in Ram Nath v. University of Delhi & Anr. was reversed.

However, it introduced a crucial disclaimer: “The whole undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those who are not by definition ‘workmen’ may not benefit from the status.”

JUDGEMENT

Considering the appellant will not be regarded as a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, of 1947, the court rejected the appellant’s appeal. Even though the appellant is employed in the sector pursuant to the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947, the court used precedents to show that she is not a workman.

The court additionally ordered the respondent’s knowledgeable attorney to pay the appellant Rs. 40,000 to resolve all of her claims.

CONCLUSION

We may sum up by saying that, according to the Triple Test in the Bangalore Water Supply case, an educational institution shall be regarded as a business under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The instructor would not be regarded as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it is further stated in this instance. Therefore, even if a school or educational institution is a business, the teacher working there won’t be regarded as a worker for the purposes of the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.

BY HARSHIKA BHUTDA, Student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad