MUTHAYYAN Vs. MANAGER KADALUR ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a school teacher a workman Such a question two decades ago would have astonished many and irritated some. But today nobody will feel either surprise or astonishment at such a question. This is the metamorphosis that has been brought in the outlook of man in the relationship between employer and employee by the Bangalore Water Supply Case. That case has opened up new vistas in industrial relations which could not have been thought of even when the Industrial Disputes Act was passed. The question posed in this petition is a sequel to some observations in the above judgment.

(2.) The petitioner was a teacher in the primary school at Kadalur Estate from 7-1-1959. He was dismissed from service with effect from 12-10-1970. His case was that he was a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). He was employed in the Estate and was included in the check roll of the estate. The Government referred the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication as per its order dated 21-11-1978. The 2nd respondent, Labour Court, numbered the case as I. D. 1 of 1978 and after hearing the parties held against the petitioner on the preliminary objection raised that the petitioner was not a workman In this petition the award Ext PI is under challenge.

(3.) The 2nd respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in University of Delhi and another v. Ram Nath and others, 1963 (II) LLJ 335, to hold that a teacher in a school is not a workman. Though Bangalore Water Supply case reported in 1978 (I) LLJ 349 was brought to his notice he distinguished it on the ground that in the said case the Supreme Court had overruled 1963 (II) LLJ 335 only to the extent that it held that a school was not an industry but the finding that a teacher was not a workman was not disturbed. Before me the petitioner's counsel put forth a strong plea that the only deduction possible from the discussion in the Bangalore case decided by the Supreme Court is that a teacher is a workman. Counsel for the management 1st respondent pleaded, however, that this question was left open by the Supreme Court and was, therefore, available for consideration.