TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an educational institution is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether a teacher employed in a school is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issue (i): whether an educational institution is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Analysis: The statutory definition of industry in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was examined in the light of prior authority. The earlier view that educational institutions were outside the definition was displaced, and the settled position applied was that an educational institution may fall within the concept of industry when the nature of the undertaking and its activities satisfy the statutory test.
Conclusion: The school was treated as an industry for the purposes of the Act.
Issue (ii): whether a teacher employed in a school is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Analysis: Section 2(s) confines the expression workman to a person employed in an industry to do skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, subject to the stated exclusions. The decisive inquiry is the nature of the duties actually performed. Teaching was held not to be manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; the principal function of a teacher is imparting education, and any clerical tasks are merely incidental. The broad construction that every employee of an industry is a workman was rejected because it would make the limiting words in section 2(s) otiose.
Conclusion: A teacher employed in a school is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s).
Final Conclusion: The refusal to direct a reference was sustained because the appellant did not satisfy the statutory definition of workman, even though the institution fell within the industrial law framework.
Ratio Decidendi: A teacher whose principal duty is imparting education does not fall within section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because teaching is neither manual, supervisory, technical nor clerical work, and incidental clerical duties do not alter that character.
TaxTMI 
