https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169633 The Industrial Disputes Act was interpreted as a whole, with emphasis on the link between "employer", "industry" and "workman" under sections 2(g), 2(j) and 2(s). The Supreme Court reasoned that the core activity of an educational institution is imparting education through teachers, and that teachers are excluded from the statutory definition of workman. On that basis, subordinate staff and incidental activities could not alter the character of the institution into trade, business, manufacture or a comparable industrial undertaking. The work of education carried on by the University of Delhi and its affiliated college was therefore not an industry, and applications under section 33C(2) were held to be incompetent. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169633 The Industrial Disputes Act was interpreted as a whole, with emphasis on the link between "employer", "industry" and "workman" under sections 2(g), 2(j) and 2(s). The Supreme Court reasoned that the core activity of an educational institution is imparting education through teachers, and that teachers are excluded from the statutory definition of workman. On that basis, subordinate staff and incidental activities could not alter the character of the institution into trade, business, manufacture or a comparable industrial undertaking. The work of education carried on by the University of Delhi and its affiliated college was therefore not an industry, and applications under section 33C(2) were held to be incompetent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169633