Teacher is a workman or not under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947

 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………...……………………………. Pg 1

II. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY…….…………………………….……………Pg 2

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………Pg 2

IV. HYPOTHESIS………………………………………………………….………Pg 2

V. SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………………………...…. Pg 2

VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY……………………………………………. Pg 2

VII. CHAPTERIZATION

1. WHAT IS AN INDUSTRY AND A WORKMAN…….……………………… Pg 3

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WORKMAN AND AN EMPLOYEE...………. Pg 3

3. TEACHER A WORKMAN OR NOT…………….………………………….... Pg 5

4. CONCLUSION, CRITICISM & SUGGESTION………………………….…....Pg 12

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..Pg 13

INTRODUCTION
The concept of workman is central to the concept of an industrial dispute as an industrial
dispute can be raised either by a "workman" or an "employer." Since the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 ("ID Act") is a piece of beneficial legislation, the courts have enlarged the scope and
applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman." Section 2(s)
defines workman as any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, for hire or
reward, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. It
excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly
managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity.

“The scope of term ‘industry’ as it appears in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through
judicial decisions, it has been analyzed if charitable institutions, hospitals and legal firms are
industries.” Sec.2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘industry’ as any business,
trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service,
employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”. An industry exists
only when there is relationship between employers and employees, the former is engaged in
business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and the latter is engaged in
the calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation and avocation. Sec. 2(j)
gives the definition of industry, which was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa. The term industry has been given
a wide scope and the judgment overruled several earlier decisions.

Ordinarily, the primary function of a teacher is to impart education. There is usually a syllabus
to be followed, but the teacher has the independence to teach the syllabus in such manner as he
thinks fit, and normally it requires creativity and initiative on the part of the teacher to carry
out his functions. Teachers employed by educational institutions, whether the said institutions
are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post-graduate education cannot be called as
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(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 or technical work or clerical work… The clerical work, if any they may do, is only
incidental to their principal work of teaching.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
 The researcher’s prime aim is to present a detailed study of "Teacher is workman or
not under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947", through articles, affirmations, decisions and
suggestions.
 The researcher aims to descriptively provide a critical overview of the topics arising.
 The main goal of this research is to understand the legal position in Indian context.
 And also to know about evolution of related case law(s) with changing spectra of
society.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher will be relying on Doctrinal method of research to complete the project. These
involve various primary and secondary sources of literature and insights.

HYPOTHESIS:

 Educational Institutes are industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
 Teachers are not workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
 Teachers doing clerical job are workman under the said act.

SOURCES OF DATA

1. PRIMARY SOURCES
a. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
2. SECONDARY SOURCES
a. BLOGS
b. BOOKS

c. CASE COMMENTARIES.
d. JOURNALS

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

The researcher has territorial, monetary and time limitations in completing the project.
CHAPTER’S

1. WHAT IS AN INDUSTRY AND WORKMAN

INDUSTRY

The definition of “industry” has evolved and expanded significantly over a period of time by
the legislative acts and judicial decisions. The journey of such evolution has been symbolic
primarily because of lack clarity in the legislative intent as embodied in the law and conflicting
judicial approaches regarding the ambit of such definition.

Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471 can be divided into two components. The
first component enumerates as the statutory meaning of ‘industry’2; the second component
provides as to what does an industry includes3 within its definition. This definition is not
exhaustive and cannot be treated as restricted in any sense has therefore been subjected to
immense judicial scrutiny. The landmark judgement is the Bangalore Water Supply case,
enlarged the definition to a large extent and over-ruled case precedents which were a part of
narrow interpretation, that is to say, before the Bangalore Water Supply case clubs4, hospitals5,
universities6, solicitor firms7, government departments were excluded from the definition of
industry but after the Bangalore judgement they have been declared as industry. The triple test
of the Bangalore case forms the quintessential part of the amended definition of industry in
1982.

The triple test provides that

a) systematic activities
b) organized by cooperation between employer and employees
c) for the production of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes would
constitute industry.

However, this test was subjected to exceptions, namely, industry does not include spiritual or
religious services; absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant (although an
organisation will not cease to be a trade or business because of philanthropy animating the
undertaking) The main test is the nature of activity with emphasis of employer-employee
relationship therefore all organized activities that satisfy the triple test will constitute industry
including undertakings, callings and services, adventures’ analogous to the carrying on of trade
or business. Thus, professions, clubs, educational institutions, cooperatives, research institutes,

1
Hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947
2
It relates to the activities of employer- ( i) business, (ii) trade, (iii) undertaking, (iv) manufacture or (v) calling
of employers
3
Nature of work done by employees or workmen – (i) calling, (ii) service, (iii) employment, (iv) handicraft, or
(v) industrial occupation, or (vi) avocation of workmen
4
Cricket club of India v Bombay Labour Union (1969 AIR 276)
5
Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh (AIR 1970 SC 1406); Dhanrajgiri Hospital v. Workmen (AIR
1975 SC 2032)
6
University of Delhi Vs. Ram Nath (1963 AIR 1873)
7
National Union of Commercial Employees v. M.R. Meher (AIR 1962 SC 1080) ; Osmania University v Industrial
Tribunal Hyderabad (AIR 1960 AP 388)
charitable projects and (vii) other kindred adventures will not be exempted from Section 2(j)
of the Act, 1947 provided the triple test is fulfilled. The Apex Court also enunciated the
dominant nature criterion or test according to which a limited category of professions, clubs,
co-operatives little research labs, and even gurukulas may qualify for exemption if
substantively no employees are hired but only in minimal matters some marginal employees
are hired without disturbing the non-employee character of the unit. Also, lawyers volunteering
to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre
or if such services are supplied at a nominal cost and the those who serve are not paid
remuneration based on master servant relationship then such an institution would not constitute
industry even if servants, manual or technical, are hired.

In the aftermath of the Bangalore case, the legislature intervened and amended the definition
of industry which although re-iterated the ratio of the Bangalore case but also excluded certain
public utility services and welfare activities from its domain. The amendment (not yet
enforced) provided that any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an
employer and his workmen (including independent contractor) for the production, supply or
distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants (excluding spiritual or
religious activities). The definition precludes hospitals or dispensaries; educational, scientific,
research or training institutions; institutions owned or managed by organisations substantially
engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service; khadi or village industries; any
activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including
all the activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with defence
research, atomic energy and space; number of individual employed in a profession or co-
operative society or a society are less than ten. Further clarity in the definition of industry was
enunciated in the case of Physical Research Laboratory case8 in which it was held that a
research institute, of the Government department, was not an industry although it carried out
systematic activities with the help of employees but did not produce or distribute services to
satisfy human wants and therefore there was absence of commercial motive. Also, the Apex
Court has held that the Bangalore case is the law of the land and the proposed amendment is
not binding yet (as it has not been enforced) therefore the Telecommunication Department of
the Government is an ‘industry’ because it is engaged in a commercial activity and do not
discharge any of the sovereign functions of the State9. Similarly, the functions which are carried
on by All India Radio and Doordarshan cannot be said to be confined to sovereign functions
as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial advertisements telecast
i.e. except the sovereign function all other activities of employers would be covered within the
sweep of term ‘industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act, 194710.

It is noteworthy to mention that a different and contradictory position was taken by Bombay
Telephone Canteen Employees’ case11 (followed the Theyyam Joseph’s case12) which the

8
Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma 08/04/1997
9
General Manager, Telecom vs S. Srinivasa Rao & Ors decided on 18/11/ 1997
10
All India Radio v Shri Santosh Kumar & Anr, Etc (05/02/1998)
11
Bombay Telephone Canteen v Union Of India & Anr decided on 09/07/ 1997
12
It was held that functions of the Postal Department are part of the sovereign functions of the state and it is,
therefore, not an ‘industry’ within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
two-judge bench observed that if the ratio of Bangalore case is strictly applied then it would
yield catastrophic consequences and held that Telephone Nigam of Government is not an
‘industry’ because it is discharging sovereign functions. Along the same lines the Supreme
Court faced a dilemma in the Coir Band case13 primarily because on one hand if the function
of the Coir Board is emphasized i.e. to promote coir industry, open markets for it and provide
facilities to make coir industry’s products more marketable then it could be held that it is not
an industry as its predominant purpose is merely to promote coir business. On the other hand
if the tests laid down in the Bangalore case are applied then it is an organization where there
are employers and employees to do some useful work for the benefit of others then the
inevitable conclusion is that it is an industry. The Court resolved its dilemma by following the
former reasoning and observed that not every organization which does useful service and
employs people can be labelled as industry. The Court was also of the view that the Bangalore
case provides a sweeping definition of industry which is not contemplated by the Act, 1947
and therefore that the matter must be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to
consider whether a larger Bench should be constituted to re-consider the decision of Bangalore
case. In the recent watershed judgement in Jai Bir Singh case14 the Supreme Court expressed
its concern regarding the excessive pro-workmen interpretation given in the Bangalore case as
it inadvertently overlooked the interests of the employer and ignored the main object of the
Act, 1947 (regulation of employer-employee relationship by keeping in view interests of the
employers, who has put his capital and expertise into the industry and the workers who by their
labour equally contribute to the growth of the industry). Therefore, the Court observed that
there was dire need to re-examine such a sweeping definition of industry and allow legislature
to draft a more comprehensive definition that adheres to the demands of employers and
employees in the public and private sectors.

The careful analysis of definition of industry as provided in Section 2(l) in the Labour Code on
Industrial Relations Bill, 2015 suggests that the legislature has incorporated the elements of
Bangalore case by explicitly ignoring the concerns raise in the Coir Band and Jair Bir Singh
case. It states that any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and
his workmen (including independent contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of
goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants would constitute industry irrespective of
whether any capital has been invested for carrying on such activity or whether such activity is
carried out with or without profit motive. It excludes agricultural operations unless such
operations are integrated with an activity which substantially would constitute industry. This
definition is identical to the one proposed by the amendment in 1982, the only difference
between the two is that the former exempted certain public utility services and welfare
functions of the state from being covered within the definition but the latter does not explicitly
provide for any such exemptions. The primary reason for drafting such an expansive definition
implies that the intention of the legislature is to protect the workmen who have been excluded
by a narrow definition at least till such alternative statutory regimes are enacted.

13
It was held that functions of the Postal Department are part of the sovereign functions of the state and it is,
therefore, not an ‘industry’ within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
14
State of U.P vs Jai Bir Singh Appeal (civil) 897 of 2002 decided on 05/05/2005
The preceding three parts have elucidated the gradual evolution in the definition of industry.
This paper takes into consideration the rationale of the Government, which also forms the
foundation of the definition provided in the Draft Code Bill, 2015, for not implementing the
amended definition of 1982 i.e. there is no alternative machinery for redressal of the service
disputes of the employees of the categories exempted from the definition 15. The judgement of
the Coir Band and Jai Bir Singh seems to be the correct position that such sweeping definition
of industry in the Bangalore case needs to crystallised and refined taking into consideration the
interests of workmen and employers equally and for achieving the object of the Act, 1947 i.e.
growth of industry by harmonisation of employer-employee relation. Similarly, the
overarching definition of industry provided in the Draft Code Bill, 2015 which merely
reiterates the Bangalore case with no specific exceptions requires modification along the same
lines so that floodgates to litigation are not opened.

WORKMAN
Section 2(s) defines “workman” as follows:
Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any
proceedings 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 -
(a) who is subject to the Air Force Act, ...or the Army Act, ...or the Navy Act, ...; or
(b) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or employee of a prison; or
(c) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(d) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six
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.

The definition consists of three parts. The first part provides the statutory meaning. This part
determines “workman” by reference to a person (including an apprentice) who is employed in
any industry to do any “manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or reward”. This part may be considered as the “signification or
denotation part”. The second part which is said to be an “extended connotation” of the word
“workman” is designed to include something more than what it primarily denotes. That is,
persons who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a
consequence of an industrial dispute and also persons whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to such a industrial dispute are also included in this part of the definition.
On the contrary, in the third part of Section 2(s), certain categories of persons specified in

15
Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India, [1988] 4 SCC 54]
clauses (i) to (iv) are expressly excluded. Hence, even if a person satisfies the requirements of
the first two parts, he cannot be declared as a ‘workman’ under the Act.16

A person must have been employed in any kind of work listed out under section 2(s) before he
can be designated a “workman”. The term “manual” work which appears first in the row under
the definition comprises of work involving physical exertion as distinct from mental or
intellectual exertion. “Unskilled” work, means, for example, the work of peons, dafteries,
sweepers, etc. The category of “skilled” work includes the work of a bench chemist carrying
out chemical analysis and recording results, work of a compounder, grinder etc. It should be
pointed out that till recently the work of an artiste was also regarded as “skilled work”. A
Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in a recent Case, where certain artistes had claimed
relief under the Industrial Disputes Act against one of the premier art institutes, Bharat Bhawan
Trust, Bhopal, has ruled that artistes engaged in production of drama or in the theatre
management or to participate in a play can by no stretch of imagination be termed as ‘workmen’
because in performing their work, they have to bring in their artistic ability, talent and a sense
of perception etc.17 Thus, the work done by the artistes, the Court added, is “essentially creative
and freedom of expression [being] an integral part of it” can only be managed by “a person
with an artistic talent and requisite technique”.18 Therefore, the question of any work being
assigned by some other to an artiste does not arise at all. The other work, apart from acting,
entrusted to artistes, as per the Court, is only “ancillary to the main work” and therefore, it is
“inappropriate”19 to designate artistes as skilled workers to bring them under the definition of
“workman”. The Supreme Court through this interpretation has given a new dimension to the
world of creative art and, at the same time, restricted the meaning of the term “workman”.

The work termed as “technical” depends upon the special mental training or scientific or
technical knowledge of the person employed. Moreover, persons employed to undertake
technical work fall within the parameters of the definition of “workman” irrespective of the
amount drawn by them by way of wages.20

The word “operational”, inserted through an Amendment in 1982 has introduced superfluity
and ambiguity21 in to the existing definition because the categories of work stated above
subsume “operational” work also.

“Clerical” work, as ordinarily understood, is synonymous with routine, sterotype work which
does not involve any initiative or creativity.

16
See, Everestee v. District Labour Officer, 1999 (83) FLR 151, 155 (Ker.) (D.B.) (per Laxshmann, J.)
17
Bharat Bhawan Trust v. Bharat Bhawan Artistes' Association, 2001-11-L.L.J 1064, 1067-68 (S.C.) (D.B.) {per
Rajendra Babu, J.)
18
Id., at 1068.
19
Ibid.
20
A fitter designated as “Technical Supervisor” drawing wages Rs.2500 per month would be a workman within
section 2(s), see Keshod Nagar Palika v. Pankajgiri Tavargiri, 2000 (85) FLR 488, 490 (Guj.) (per Bhatt, J.)
21
Supra note 19 at 593
Supreme Court’s decisions establish that in deciding whether a person is a workman or not
what matters is the nature of the actual work performed by an employed person and not his
“glorious designation”.

In Reserve Bank of Indiez22 the Supreme Court observed: The question whether a particular
workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of ‘workman’ is ultimately aquestion
of fact, or, at least one of mixed fact and law... and will... depend upon the nature of the
industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organizational set ap of the particular
unit of industry and like factors. No doubt ... the work in a Bank involves layer upon layer of
checkers and checking is hardly supervision....23

Likewise, in Arkal Govindraj Rao,24 the Apex Court has reiterated: Difference in salary is
hardly decisive, nor the designation of a clerk by itself is decisive. Focus has to be on the nature
of the duties performed... [The] high-sounding nomenclatures are adopted not only to inflate
the egjo of the employer but primarily for avoiding the application of the Act. They apart from
being misleading are not in tune with free India’s Constitutional culture...25

Hence, “the dominant purpose of the employment must be first taken into consideration and
gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and the character
of a person”.26

The expression “employed in any industry” under the Act, would thus take in the employees
who are employed in connection with operations incidental to the main industrial activity.27

We may now turn to “Court of Inquiry”, the Report of which can, if acted upon at least,
substantially reduce the incidence of industrial disputes which means, greater prospects for
better economic development.

22
All India Reserve Bank Employees’ Association v. Reserve Bank of India
23
Id., at 187.
24
Arkal Govindraj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 985, 986: Sunita B. Vatsaraj v.
Karnataka Bank Ltd., 1999 Lab I.C. 1542, 1548-49: (Bom.) {per Pandya,J.): Keshod Nagar Palika, supra note 36
at 490: Kulwant Singh v. M/s. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd., 2000 (85) FLR 849 (Bom.) {per Shah,J.) A person
designated as security-cum-Administrative Officer in the circumstances clearly falls within the definition of
‘workman’. Mere nomenclature is not a proof of actual work to be done by him, id., at 853-54.
25
Arkal Govindraj Rao..., id., at 988.
26
Id., at 987.
27
J.K.Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 737, 748.
2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WORKAMN AND AN EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
 As per the Section 2(e) of the Payment of  The word "workman" has been defined
gratuity Act, 1972:
"employee" means any person (other than
an apprentice) employed on wages, in any
establishment, factory, mine, oilfield,
plantation, port, railway company or shop,
to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or
unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical
or clerical work, whether the terms of such
employment are express or implied, and
whether or not such person is employed
in a managerial or administrative
capacity, but does not include any such
person who holds a post under the Central
Government or a State Government and is
governed by any other Act or by any rules
providing for payment of gratuity.
 As per Section 2(f) of The Employees’
Provident Funds And Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952
“employee” means any person who is
employed for wages in any kind of work,
manual or otherwise, in or in connection
with the work of an establishment and
who gets his wages directly or indirectly
from the employer, and includes any
person,-
(i) employed by or through a
contractor in or in connection
with the work of the
establishment;
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not
being an apprentice engaged
under the Apprentices Act, 1961
(52 of 1961) or under the  As per Section 2(i) of The Contract
standing orders of the
establishment;
WORKMAN
in Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:
"workman" means any person (including
an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purpose 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 –
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950
(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46
of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
1957); or (ii) who is employed in the
police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison; or
who is employed mainly in a
managerial or administrative
capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in
a supervisory capacity, draws wages
exceeding one thousand six 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.
Labour Regulation and Abolition Act.
1970
"workman" means, any person
employed, in or in connection with the
work of any establishment to do any
 As per Section 2(b) of the Employment
Exchanges (Compulsory Notification
of Vacancies) Act, 1959:
“Employee” means Any person who is
employed in an establishment to do any
work for remuneration.
 As per Clause 2(e) of the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952
"Employee" means a person appointed
to or borne on the cadre of the staff of the
Corporation, other than persons on
deputation.
 As per Section 2(9) of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948
"employee" means any person employed
for wages in or in connection with the
work of a factory or establishment to
which this Act applies and -
who is directly employed by the
principal employer on any work of, or
incidental or preliminary to or connected
with the work of, the factory or
establishment, whether such work is
done by the employee in the factory or
establishment or elsewhere; or
who is employed by or through an
immediate employer on the premises of
the factory or establishment or under the  As per Section 2(j) of the Inter-State
supervision of the principal employer or
his agent on work which is ordinarily
part of the work of the factory or
establishment or which is preliminary to
the work carried on in or incidental to the in or in connection with the work of any
purpose of the factory or establishment;
or
whose services are temporarily lent or let technical or clerical work for hire or
on hire to the principal employer by the
person with whom the person whose
services are so lent or let on hire has
entered into a contract of service; and
includes any person employed for wages
skilled, semi-skilled or un-skilled
manual, supervisory, technical or clerical
work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or
implied but does not include any such
person (A) who is employed mainly in a
managerial or administrative capacity; or
(B) 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;
or
(C) who is an out-worker, that is to say, a
person to whom any articles and
materials are given out by or on behalf of
the principal employer to be made up,
cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented,
finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise
processed for sale for the purposes of the
trade or business of the principal
employer and the process is to be carried
out either in the home of the out-worker
or in some other premises, not being
premises under the control and
management of the principal employer.
Migrant Workmen (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act, 1979.
"workman" means any person employed
establishment to do any skilled, semi-
skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory,
reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, but
does not include any such person-(i) who
is employed mainly in a managerial or
administration capacity; or (ii) who,
 on any work connected with the being employed in a supervisory
administration of the factory or capacity, draws wages exceeding five
establishment or any part, department or hundred rupees per mensem, or
branch thereof or with the purchase of exercises, either by the nature of the
raw materials for, or the distribution or duties attached to the office or by reason
sale of the products of, the factory or of the powers vested in him, functions
establishment or any person engaged as mainly of a managerial nature.
an apprentice, not being an apprentice
engaged under the Apprentices Act,
1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing
orders of the establishment; but does not
include - (a) any member of the Indian
naval, military or air forces; or
(b) any person so employed whose
wages (excluding remuneration for
overtime work) exceed such wages as
may be prescribed by the Central
Government :
Provided that an employee whose wages
(excluding) remuneration for overtime
work) exceed such wages as may be
prescribed by the Central Government
at any time after (and not before) the
beginning of the contribution period,
shall continue to be an employee until
the end of that period;

 As per Section 2(i) of the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948
"employee" means any person who is
employed for hire or reward to do any
work, skilled or unskilled, manual or
clerical, in a scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of
wages have been fixed; and includes an
out-worker to whom any articles or
materials are given out by another person
to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered,
ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted
or otherwise processed for sale for the
purposes of the trade or business of that
other person where the process is to be
carried out either in the home of the out-
 worker or in some other premises not
being premises under the control and
management of that other person; and
also includes an employee declared to be
an employee by the appropriate
Government; but does not include any
member of the Armed Forces of the
2*[Union].

 As per Section 2(13) of the Payment of

Bonus Act, 1965:
"employee" means Any person (other
than an apprentice) employed on a salary
or wage not exceeding three thousand
and five hundred rupees per mensem in
any industry to do any skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory,
managerial, administrative, technical or
clerical work of hire or reward, whether
the terms of employment be express of
implied.

3. TEACHER A WORKMAN OR NOT

Venkitaraman v. Labour Court28 - After due consideration of ruling available the Court of
Kerala held that the nature of work that a teacher does is the imparting of education which does
not partake of the nature of work mentioned in Section 2 (s) of the Act, therefore the teachers
engaged in the educational institutions whether professors, readers or lecturers are not
workmen.

Miss A Sundarambal vs. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Dieu and others29 - it has been held that
educational institution is an industry in view of the decision in Bangalore Water supply and
Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. In order to be a workman a person must be employed in an
industry for hire or reward in skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical
work and such person should not be a person falling under any of the four exemption clauses.
It has been further held that teachers employed by the educational institutions whether the said
institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education, cannot be

28
(1982) ILLJ 454 (Ker); Banglore water supply case, AIR 1978 SC 548; University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1963)
IILLJ 335.
29
(1989) ILLJ 61 SC.
called workmen. 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 responsible citizens. Children go under 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 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 in absence
of these words. The Supreme Court held 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 definition of
workman as it now stand.

Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and
Anr. (23.03.1999 - PATNAHC)30
Patna High Court held that a teacher of the educational institution is not a workman.
Accordingly, it is held that M.K. Choudhary is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of
the Act even though the institution where he is teaching may be treated as an industry. As he
is not a workman, the dispute raised by him will not be an industrial dispute which can be
referred under the Act for adjudication. The Labour Court has committed a serious error of law
in holding otherwise. While dealing with the question as to whether the teacher is a workman
or not the Labour Court came to the conclusion that in view of the amended provision in 1982
the work performed by a teacher is a skilled work and as such he is workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court failed to notice that the work performed
by a teacher is not a skilled work as included in the definition and the same has been specially
held by the Apex Court. The addition of works in the definition by amending Act, 1982 in no
way changes the position. Thus, in my view, the Labour Court has erred in holding that the
teacher is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Vallabh Das Sharma vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
(07.08.2000 - RAJHC)31
The Court held that “Merely, because the State Government made a reference to the Labour
Court which was entertained and the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the workman,
that does not mean that this Court is precluded from interfering with the same in its jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In our considered opinion, the learned single
Judge was wholly justified in disturbing the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground
that it had no jurisdiction to pass the award when the respondent Teacher was not a workman
falling under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act.” And hence appeal was dismissed.

30
MANU/BH/0085/1999
31
MANU/RH/0270/2000
Mooli Devi Choudhary and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (25.08.2010 - RAJHC)32 –
Question emerged for consideration by the court was – “Whether the teachers are workmen so
as to subject to provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?”

The court held that – “Holding that Teachers are not `workmen' even though schools in which
they work may fall within the definition of `industry', the Hon'ble Apex Court in Miss A.
Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman & Diu and Ors.

4. CONCLUSION, CRITICISM & SUGGESTION

From the Banglore Water Supply Case it is clear that an education institute is an industry under
the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Because the triple test given in above case
gets fulfilled in the case of an educational institute. The imparting of education a systematic
activity, then it is imparted by the cooperation of the employer and employee and finally it is
done for imparting service to the people at large. The judgement of the apex court in caae of
Miss A Sundarambal vs, Govt. of Goa, Daman and Dieu and others it is crystal clear that
although judgement of Banglore Water Supply Case declared an educational institute as an
industry but the teachers in those institutes will not be treated as Workman as per the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 due to the fact that to become a teacher qualification is required and not
some sort of skill needs to be learned which is important in case of a workman. The clerical
work a teacher does is only incidental to his principal work of teaching and therefore even the
teacher who is doing clerical job cannot be considered as a workman under the said act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the rough proposal:
1. Journal:
 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 50, No. 1 (JANUARY-MARCH 2008),
pp. 3-50

2. Websites:
 India Law Journal
 Legal Service India
 Manupatra
 SCC Online

32
MANU/RH/0725/2010