PRAMODINI PATKAR Vs. INDIAN CANCER SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from an award made by the learned Labour Judge presiding over the Ninth Labour Court, Bombay, on June 15, 1982, in reference (IDA) No. 148 of 1979.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed by the first respondent as a temporary part-time teacher in handicrafts. She was subsequently confirmed and was made full-time teacher in the rehabilitation Department of the first respondent effective from January 1, 1969. It appears that the petitioner's pay was reduced to Rs. 181 from Rs. 200 per month for which the petitioner protested. Her services were thereafter terminated with effect from May 30, 1979, under Rule 22 (1) of the Indian Cancer Societies Rules and she was offered an amount of Rs. 3,723. 30 with notice pay and leave wages. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to her dismissal and ultimately the Government made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I. D. Act" ). At the hearing of the reference, the first respondent raised two preliminary objections that (1) the first respondent was not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the I. D. Act, and (2) the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the said Act. In order to deal with these points the learned Labour Judge recorded the oral evidence of the petitioner and that of the workshop supervisor of the first respondent by name Shalini Anant kulkarni. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that the first respondent was an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the I. D. Act but the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the said act, and accordingly rejected the reference by the impugned award. Being aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution by filing this writ petition.

(3.) NOW, the evidence adduced in the Labour Court by both the petitioner and the first respondent clearly shows that although the petitioner was described as a teacher, her work was not essentially that of a teacher in an academic field and she was not exercising intellectual skill of a teacher as we understand the term when one works in an educational institution imparting instructions to the students to build up their scholastic careers. The reference could not have been rejected by the learned Labour Judge holding that since the petitioner was a teacher she could not be said to be a workman. Thus, the evidence of the petitioner shows that at the relevant time she was working as an instructor in the handicrafts section of the Rehabilitation Centre of the first respondent. She was required to get the work done from the patients of the hospital as well as their relatives. She was preparing new patterns, designs and the like for the stitching work land she herself used to do the tailoring job. She was required to purchase the cloth from the market land was required to attend exhibitions, attend markets land also attend to visitors. Her duty was to give various types of patterns to patients and explain to them how they should work on the said patterns. After the patients finished the work, the pieces were valued in terms of naye paise in the evening and the pieces prepared by the patients were collected and kept in the store room. Amongst such trainees, there were also the dependent children of the patients because the cancer patients had to be rehabilitated. She was also teaching the illiterate patients how to read and write. Thus, although she did say that she was employed as a teacher, in the true sense of the term as we understand in the academic world, she was not a teacher imparting educational training for scholastic career. Even the evidence of Shalini Anant Kulkarni who was examined on behalf of the first respondent shows that the petitioner could not be termed as a teacher in the technical sense of the academic world. Shalini Anant Kulkarni deposed that the petitioner was required to give training in crafts and handicrafts to the patients and their relatives. She was preparing the patterns of the articles to be manufactured and then teach the patients and their relatives after holding demonstrations as to how the work should be done. She was given a helper in order to facilitate her work. The evidence of this witness further shows that if a patient was emotionally disturbed, it was the duty of the petitioner to help out such patient in reducing the emotional disturbance. In my opinion, there fore, the learned Labour Judge was not right in rejecting the reference holding that the petitioner was a teacher and hence not a work man.