VENKITARAMAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question whether a school teacher is a workman or not under the Industrial Disputes Act, for short the Act, presented itself before me in O. P. No. 3301 of 1979. In that case, the Industrial Tribunal held that a teacher was not a workman relying upon the Supreme Court decision in University of Delhi's case (1963-II LLJ 335). Though the later decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply case (1978-1 LLJ 349) was brought to his notice, he distinguished it on the ground that the later case had not overruled the earlier case. The overruling, according to him, was only to the extent that University was not an industry and the finding that a teacher was not a workman was not disturbed. In the judgment rendered by me on 13th July, 1981, reported in Muthayyan v. Manager, Kadalur Estate ( 1981 KLT 660 ) I held that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in its finding that the decision in 1963-11 LLJ 335 was not wholly reversed by the decision in 1978 (1) LLJ 349 , and observed that the question whether a teacher was a workman or not was still at large. Even so, I did not decide the question in that judgment for the reason that the petitioner's counsel in that case requested me to give him an opportunity to adduce evidence for a proper adjudication of the dispute. The same question now comes up before me again in these two writ petitioners. I think it better to express my views on this question of law in these petitions.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the Udyogamandal School f FACT), an institution run under the exclusive control and management and as a unit of the 3rd respondent, the Managing Director, F. A. C. T., Udyogamandal. The running of the school is by the 3rd respondent. In August 1975 he availed of the Onam holidays and went on a visit to Hyderabad where he had relations and friends. In the course of his stay in Hyderabad, he fell ill on 21-8-1975 and could not attend school on the re-opening date, viz., 25-8-1975. The principal issued Ext. P5 on 5-11-75 informing the petitioner that he was kept under suspension with immediate effect, pending a domestic enquiry. This was followed by Ext. P6 dated 2-12-1975 charge sheet. Enquiry followed. By Ext. P13 he was informed that enquiry had revealed that he was guilty of all charges levelled against him. Since the repeated representations by him to the management for reconsideration of the issue yielded no result, he moved the District Labour Officer for conciliation. Thereafter, the case was referred as Industrial Dispute No. 93 of 1975 before the Labour Court, Quilon, where from it was transferred to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. Before the first respondent, a preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner was not a workman. The first respondent upheld this objection by Ext. P-16. O. P. No. 3696 of 1979 is filed seeking to quash Ext P16 and for other reliefs. O. P. No. 637 of 1980 is filed seeking to quash Ext. P17 award dated 11-9-1979 made by the 1st respondent following Ext. P16 order holding that since the petitioner was not a workman there was no industrial dispute between the parties, necessitating an adjudication.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner sent an application for 2 1/2 months' half-pay leave from Hyderabad enclosing a medical certificate to the effect that he was laid up at Hyderabad with Typhoid. On receipt of the application, the Principal of the school addressed Ext. R-5 letter to the petitioner informing him that a certificate from a Doctor nominated by the Area Manager, Hyderabad was essential for grant of leave. On enquiry it was found that the petitioner was not ill and that he was touring Andhra Pradesh with a drama troupe. This resulted in the enquiry and Exts. P16 and P17 orders.