(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II, Delhi in I.D. No. 250/2002 on the reference with the terms:
(2.) The Award says that Mrs. Sushila Devi was working as a Teacher w.e.f. October 23, 1990 and that from January 1, 2001 she was not being paid her salary despite notice given by her. Mrs. Saroj, the other 'workman' before the Labour Court was appointed as a Helper Teacher with the respondent. She was also claiming her salary w. e.f. January 1, 2001. The Award says that the management was proceeded ex parte as no one appeared on behalf of the management despite service of notice. Mrs. Sushila Devi and Mrs. Saroj led evidence by way of filing affidavits and documents. The Labour Court held that the services of Mrs. Sushila Devi and Mrs. Saroj have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by. the management and that they were entitled to reinstatement along with full back wages with consequential benefits.
(3.) The Award is challenged on various grounds. However, the one ground which is pressed today is that Mrs. Sushila Devi and Mrs. Saroj were not 'workman' and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Mrs. Sushila Devi and Mrs. Saroj, were Teacher and Helper Teacher respectively. It was held by the Supreme Court in the' case of Miss. A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Damn andDiu and Others AIR 1988 SC 1700 : (1988) 4 SCC 42 : 1989-I-LLJ-61 that teachers were not workmen. This conclusion flows from the very definition of 'workman' as given in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is to the following effect: