BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPALITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner-Bhavnagar Municipality seeks for a writ of prohibition against the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the application moved by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised before me are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 claiming themselves to be primary teachers of the schools run by the respondent Municipality filed an application under Sec. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for making recovery of their salary from the petitioner. On an earlier occasion disputes of the similar type having been raised between the parties the Municipality has contested its liability to pay salary of the primary teachers employed at various schools run under its jurisdiction on the ground that the Municipality is not the employer and it is the responsibility of the Administrative Officer to make the payment. That plea having been rejected by the Labour Court and for the subsequent period also similar directions having been issued similar applications were filed. It was urged in the petition apart from other grounds that since the liability of the Municipality to pay salary as held by the Labour Court is under challenge in Special Civil Application No. 3341 of 1980 the finding given by the Labour Court could not be taken to be binding and without determining that issue the proceedings before the Labour Court may not be proceeded with.

(3.) At the time of hearing it was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner- Municipality that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 who admittedly claimed relief as primary teachers are not workmen within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Ors. ( AIR 1988 SC 1700) and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. According to him, before any action can be proceeded with under the I. D. Act the parties must have employer-employee relationship and that the employee must fall within the definition of "workman" under Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act.