Workman status and mandatory retrenchment safeguards govern school driver termination and prior approval requirements.

A school driver falls within the Industrial Disputes Act definition of "workman" because driving is skilled work, and educational institutions are not excluded as a class apart from teachers. Retrenchment is invalid unless the mandatory Section 25F requirements are met, including service of notice to the appropriate Government or prescribed authority under Section 25F(c) and Rule 76, in addition to notice and compensation. For recognised private school employees, Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act operated as a statutory safeguard requiring prior approval of the Director before termination; absence of that approval rendered the termination illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a school driver is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the retrenchment complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F, including notice to the appropriate authority. (iii) Whether termination of a recognized private school employee required prior approval of the Director under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a school driver is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: A workman is a person employed to do manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. Employees of educational institutions are not excluded as a class; only teachers are outside the definition. A driver performs skilled work and falls within the statutory definition. The existence of the Delhi School Education Act does not displace the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to such an employee.

Conclusion: The driver was a workman and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applied.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrenchment complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F, including notice to the appropriate authority.

Analysis: Retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act is valid only if the statutory preconditions are fulfilled. One month's notice and retrenchment compensation were stated to have been paid, but the statutory notice to the appropriate Government or specified authority under Section 25F(c), read with Rule 76 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, was not shown to have been served. The requirement was treated as mandatory, not optional, and the failure to comply vitiated the retrenchment.

Conclusion: The retrenchment did not satisfy the mandatory conditions of Section 25F and was invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether termination of a recognized private school employee required prior approval of the Director under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

Analysis: Section 8(2) was held to be a statutory safeguard protecting employees of recognized private schools from arbitrary termination. The State Legislature was competent to enact such a protection in relation to education. The later view striking down the provision could not govern a termination that occurred when the provision was still in force. Since prior approval had not been obtained, the termination offended the statute.

Conclusion: Prior approval was required and its absence rendered the termination illegal.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition and the tribunal's view were set aside, the retrenchment was held illegal, reinstatement was directed, and the employee was granted back wages with consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A school driver is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and retrenchment of a recognized private school employee is invalid unless the mandatory retrenchment safeguards and the statutory prior-approval requirement then in force are complied with.

---