HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3599 of 1983 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employee under section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable the Government to fix their minimum wages The Government of Haryana in exercise of power conferred under Section 27 of the Act added in Part 1 of the Schedule Item No. 40 describing "Employment in private coaching classes, schools including Nursery Schools and technical institutions", for the purpose of fixing minimum rate of wages for the employees therein. By Notification dated 30th of April, 1983 the State Government in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act fixed the minimum rate of wages in respect of the different categories of employees serving in such schools. Challenging these notifications the writ petitions were filed essentially on the ground that the teachers of educational institution cannot come within the purview of the Act since they are not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act nor would they be employee under Section 2(i) of the Act. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the power of the State Government to add any employment to the Schedule under Section 27 of the Act is without any fetter and further the appropriate Government has tried to mitigate the sufferings and exploitation of the educated trained/untrained teachers at the hands of the managements/employers of the private educational institutions and Section 5 of the Act gives large powers to the appropriate Government. With regard to the allegation of the writ petitioners that the views of the representatives of the educational institutions were not taken into consideration, the High Court repelled the same relying upon the decision of this Court in Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestors and Paints Ltd., (1985) 3 SCC 594 , wherein this Court had observed that a notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial grounds and the legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of State Policies and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.