Labour Law

Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu & Ors.

AIR 1988 SC 1700; (1988) 4 SCC 42; 1989 (1) LLJ 61

Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1700; (1988) 4 SCC 42; 1989 (1) LLJ 61
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 27 July 1988
Bench: 2-Judge Bench - A.P. Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.

Facts

A. Sundarambal was employed as a teacher in a school managed by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary in Goa.
The management terminated her services.
She attempted to challenge the termination through conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The conciliation proceedings failed.
The Government refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court because it concluded that a teacher was not a “workman” under Section 2(s).
Sundarambal sought a writ directing the Government to make the reference.
The High Court dismissed her petition.
She appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court had to distinguish between:
whether an educational institution could be an “industry”; and
whether a teacher employed in that industry was a “workman.”

Issue

Whether a school was an industry under Section 2(j).
Whether a teacher performed manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work under Section 2(s).
Whether every employee of an industry automatically became a workman.

Rule

The status of the establishment and the status of the employee are separate questions.
An organisation may qualify as an industry while particular categories of employees remain outside the definition of workman.
To be a workman, the employee’s dominant duties must fall within one of the categories specified in Section 2(s).
Teaching is a specialised intellectual and educational activity.
It cannot ordinarily be classified as:
manual work;
clerical work;
technical work in the industrial sense; or
supervisory work merely because the teacher guides and controls students.
The beneficial nature of labour legislation cannot justify extending a statutory definition beyond its language.

Application

Following the broad interpretation in Bangalore Water Supply, the Court accepted that the school could be treated as an industry.
The school carried on a systematic educational activity through cooperation between management and employees.
This conclusion, however, did not automatically bring every teacher within Section 2(s).
The Court examined the essential nature of teaching.
A teacher:
communicates knowledge;
develops students’ understanding;
trains their intellectual and personal abilities; and
evaluates their educational progress.
Although teaching requires skill, the statutory expression “skilled work” had to be read in the context of the other categories of industrial work.
The Court did not regard every occupation involving skill as “skilled work” for Section 2(s).
A teacher’s intellectual and creative function was qualitatively different from the manual, technical, operational or clerical categories contemplated by the provision.
Supervision of students was also not equivalent to supervisory control over subordinate employees.
Teachers did not supervise students as part of an employer’s industrial hierarchy.
Their function remained principally educational.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the broad and welfare-oriented object of the Act required teachers to be included.
Legislative protection could be extended to teachers through a separate statute or amendment, but the Court could not insert a new occupational category into Section 2(s).
Because Sundarambal was not a workman, her termination dispute was not an industrial dispute capable of reference under the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that an educational institution may be an industry, but a teacher is not a workman under Section 2(s).
The Government had therefore correctly declined to refer the termination dispute to a Labour Court.
Sundarambal’s appeal was dismissed.
Use this case for: employment in an industry does not automatically make a person a workman; teachers fall outside Section 2(s) because their dominant function is educational and intellectual.