A SUNDARAMBAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GOA DAMAN DIU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary, which is the fourth respondent in this petition. The first respondent is the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, the second respondent is the Lt. Governor of Goa and the Union of India is the third respondent. The services of the petitioners were terminated by the fourth respondent by a letter dated 25th of April, 1975. The termination of the services was done on several grounds, reference to which is unnecessary for the disposal of this petition.

(2.) The petitioner took several measures to get herself reinstated including what she thought was a remedy available under the Grant-in-Aid Code governing the school conducted by the fourth respondent. She was unsuccessful in those steps. Thereafter, taking resort to section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, she raised an industrial dispute which was admitted in conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner acting as the Conciliation Officer. By his report submitted to the Secretary of Industries and Labour Department on 22nd May, 1982, the Conciliation Officer reported the failure of the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner wrote more than one letter to the Government to refer the industrial dispute to the appropriate authority under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Ultimately, by his letter dated 18th February, 1983 to the petitioner, the Under Secretary of the Industries and Labour Department informed her that the Government is not making any reference of the dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that a teacher cannot be termed as workman for the purposes of the said Act". It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus requiring the first respondent to make a reference under section 10 of the said Act of the industrial Disputes involving the termination of the petitioners services.

(3.) Mr. Sonak, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has canvassed three propositions before us. In the first place he contended that the power of making a reference given to the appropriate Government under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not include the power to decide the question as to whether a particular person is a workman or not. According to him, the question as to whether a person is a workman or not can only be decided by the appropriate adjudicating authority such as the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court and the appropriate Government cannot in exercise of its power under section 10 of the Act, decided that question because by doing so it will be deciding the question of the status of a person.