# MISS A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU & ORS

- **Citation:** [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 604
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1988-07-27
- **Case number:** Special Civil Application No. 59 of 1983
- **Bench:** E.S. Venkataramiah, N.D. Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/miss-a-sundarambal-v-government-of-goa-daman-and-diu-ors-9980
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

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 terminated 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 question 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 princiH
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 appointment 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 educational 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]

## Text

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 terminated 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 question 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 princiH
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 appointment 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 educational 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 Respondents.
H
A
B
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKAtARAMIAH, J. The short question which arises for
consideration in this case is whether a teacher employed in a school
falls within the definition of the expression 'workman' as defin~d in
section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act').
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
· C 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. On receipt of the report the Government considered the question whether it could refer the matter for adjudication
D under section lO(l)(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
section 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 section lO(l)(c)
of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services. The said writ petition was registered as Special
Leave Application No. 59 of 1983. That petition was opposed by tile
respondents. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not a workman
F by its judgment dated 5th September, 1983. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special
leave.
Two questions arise for consideration in this case; (!) whether
the school, in which the appellant was working, was an industry, and
G (2) whether the appellant was a 'workman' employed in that industry.
It is, however, not disputed that if the appellant was not a 'workman'
no reference under section lO(l)(c) of the Act could be sought.
Th!! first question need not detain us long. In University of Delhi
& Anr. v. Ram Nath, (1964] 2 S.C.R. 703 a bench consisting of three
H learned judges of this Court held that the University_ of Delhi, which
. ..,
'
A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVT. OF GOA !VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 607
was an educational insiitution and Miranda House, a college affiliated
to the said University, also being an educational institution.would not
come within the definition of the expression 'industry' as defined in
. section 2(j) of the Act. Section 2(j) of the Act states that 'industry'
means any business; trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft,
or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. Gajendragadkar,
J., (as he then was) who decided the said case, held that the educational institutions whiCh were predominantly engaged in teaching
could not be considered as industries within the meaning of the said
expression in section './(j) of the Act and, therefore, a driver who was
employed by the Miranda House could not be considered as a wbrkinan .employed in an industry. The.above decision came up for consideration in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R.
Rajappa & Others, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 207 before a larger bench of this
Court. In that case the decision in University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram
· /\(ath, (supra) was overruled. Krishna Iyer, J. who delivered the
majority jqdgment observed at page 283 of the Report 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
A
B
c
D
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
E
nature of th<; departments as explained in the Corporation
of Nagpur, will be true test. The whole undertaking will be
'industry' although those who are .not 'workmen' qy definition may nm Jenefit by the status."
The learned Judge, however, observed that while an educational
F
institution was an industry it was possible that some of the employees
in that industry might not be workmen. At page 261 of the Report with
reference to the case of University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath,
(supra) the learned Judge observed thus:
'The first ground relied on by the Court is base.ct
G
upon the preliminary conclusion that teachers are no(
'workmen' by definition. Perhaps, they are not, because.
teachers do not do manual work or technical work. We are
not too sure whether it is proper to disregard, with contempt, manual work and separate it from education, itor
are we too sure whether in our technological universe, eduH
A
c
b
E
F
G
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
cation has to be excluded. However, that may be a battle to
be waged on a later occasion by litigation and we do not
propose to pronounce on it at present. The Court, in the
University of Delhi, proceeded on that assumption viz. that
teachers are not workmen, which we will adopt to test the
validity of the argument."
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 & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa & Others, (supra) the
question whether teachers in an educational institution can be considered as workmen still remains to be decirled.
Section 2(s) of the Act defines 'workman' thus:
"2(s). 'workman' means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work
for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include
any such person
(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1940),
or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an
officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,
draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or
exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the
office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature."
A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVT. OF GOA IVENKATARAMIAH, J.) 609
In order to be a workman, a person should be one who satisfies
the following conditions: (i) he should be a person employed in an
industry for hire or reward; (ii) he should be engaged in skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and (iii) 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
indusify 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.
We are concerned in this case primarily with the meaning of the
words 'skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical
work'. If an employee in an industry is not a person engaged in doing
work falling in any of these categories, he would not be a workman at
all even though he is employed in an indu-stry. 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
workman even though he is an employee of an industry as settled by
this Court in May and Baker (India) Lid. v. Their Workmen., [1961)
(II) L.L.J. 94. 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 cohsisted 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. Dealing with the said question
Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) observed thus:
"As 'workman' was then defined as any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual
or clerical work for hire or reward. Therefore, doing manual or Clerical work was necessary before a person could be
called a workman. This definition came for consideration
before industrial tribunals and it was consistently held that
the designation of the employee was not of great moment
and what was of importance was the nature of his duties. If
the nature of the duties is manual or clerical, then the
person must be held to be a workman. On the other hand if
manual or clerical work is only a sinall part of the duties of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
the person concerned and incidental to his main work
which is not manual or clerical, ihen such a person would
not be a workman. It has, therefore, to be seen in each case
from the nature of the duties whether a person employed is
a workman or not, under the definition of that work as it
existed before the amendment of 1956. The nature of the
duties of Mukerjee is not in dispute in this case and the
only question therefore is whether looking to the nature of
the duties it can be said that Mukerjee was a workman
within- the meaning of S. 2(s) as it stood at the relevant
time. We find from the nature of the duties assigned to
Mukerjee that his- main work was that of canvassing and
any clerical or .manual work that he had to do was incidental to his main work of canvassing and could not take more
than a small fi;action of the time for which he had to work,
In the circumstances the tribunal's conclusion .that Mukerjee was a workman is incorrect. The tribunal seems to have
been.led away by the fact that Mukerjee had no supervisory
duties and had to work under the directions of his superior
officers. That, however, would not necessarily mean that
Mukerjee's duties were mainly manual or clerical. From
what the tribunal itself has found it is clear that Mukerjee's
d'uties were mainly neither clerical nor manual. Therefore,
as Mukerjee was not a workman, his case would not be
covered by the Industrial J;:>isputes Act and the tribunal
would have no jurisdiction to order his reinstatement. We,
therefore, set aside the Qrder of the tribunal directing reinstatement of Mukerjee along with other reliefs.,,.
The Court held that the employee Mukerjee involved in that case
F
was not a workman under section 2(s) of the Act because he was not
mainly employed to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work
for hire or reward, which were the only two classes of employees who
qualified for being treated as 'workman' under the definition of the
expression 'workman' in the Act, as it stood then. As a result of the
above decision, in order to give protection regarding security of empG loyment and other benefits to sales representatives, parliament passed
a separate law entitled the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of
Service) Act, 1976. It is no doubt true that after the events leading to
the above decision took place section 2( s) of the Act was amended by
including persons doing technical work as well as supervisory work.
The question for consideration is whether even after the inclusion of
H the above two classes of employees in the definition of the expression
,_
' A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVT. OF GOA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 611
'workman' in the Act a teacher in a school can be called a workman.
We are of the view that the teachers' employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary,
graduate or post graduate education cannot be called as 'workmen'
within the meaning of section Z(s) ·of the Act, Imparting of education
which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled
or unskilled manual ·work 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, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become res'ponsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical
work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of
teaching. We agree "with the reasons given by the High Court for
taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as 'workmen' as
defined under the Act. 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 Z(s)
of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of this
A
B
c
D
· argument will render the words 'to do any skilled or unskilled manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work' me3!1ingless. A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible only in the absence of
these words. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, (supra) precludes us from taking such a view. We, therefore, ho)d that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant
was not a 'workman' though the school was an industry in view of the . E
definition of 'workman' as it now stands.
We may at this stage observe that teachers as a class cannot be
denied the benefits of social justice. We are aware of the several
methods adopted by unscrupulous managements to exploit them by
imposing on them on just conditions of service. In order to do jus\ice to
F
them 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
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. We are told that
in the State of Goa there is no such Act in force. If it is so, it is time
G
that the State of Goa takes 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.
This appeal\ however. fails and it is dismissed. Before we conH
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
•l'
A
elude we record the statement made on our suggestion by the learned
counsel for the Management, Shri G.P. 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
agnied to receive Rs.40,000 accordingly. We direct the Management
B to pay the above sum of Rs.40,000 to the appellant in six instalments.
They shall pay Rs.6,000 on 1.9.1988, Rs.6,000 on 1.10.1988, Rs.6,000
on 1.11.1988, Rs.6,000 on 1.12.1988, Rs.6,000 on 1.1.1989 ai1d
Rs.10,000on 1.2.1989.
There is no order as to costs.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.