KARTHIYAYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for decision in these three appeals is as to whether a teacher is a workman as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Khalid J. in his judgment in O.P. Nos. 3696 of 1979 and 637 of 1980 since reported in 1982 KLT 327 held that a teacher, not being a person employed to do manual work, is not a workman. That judgment is the subject matter of Writ Appeal Nos. 410 and 411 of 1982. U L. Bhat J., in his judgment in O.P. No. 6966 of 1981 followed an earlier judgment of Khalid J., reported in 1981 KLT 660 as also 1982 KLT 327 and held that substitute teachers appointed by the Railway Administration were not workmen entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. That judgment is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 587 of 1982.

(2.) S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines a workman as follows:

(3.) The definition therefore provides for workmen to mean persons engaged in manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work in any industry. The manual work in turn may be skilled or unskilled. Altogether therefore there are five categories of people who are within the definition of workman. They are: (1) Persons who are engaged in skilled manual work; (2) Unskilled manual work; (3), Supervisory work; (4) Technical work; and (5) Clerical work. From the generality of persons comprehended by the definition, four categories of persons are excluded. They are: (1) Persons who are subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air force Act, 1950 or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; (2) Persons employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; (3) Persons employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity; and (4) those, being employed in supervisory capacity, draw wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by the reason of the powers vested in them, functions mainly of a managerial nature.