J G GAREWAL H P GAREWAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "School is an industry but teacher is not a workman." Much emphasis has been put by learned senior counsel Shri Nair in that regard and has submitted that this is a well settled principle of law and in that regard he has cited two decisions of the Supreme Court they are Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 755 : 2004 Lab IC 541 and the latest pronouncement Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 232 : 2005 Lab IC 1315 . Shri Varun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to somersault the situation on the ground that the facts are quite different. According to learned Counsel the petitioner is not purely a teacher but certain duties are also assigned to him to serve in the factory area in the main office under O.S. in preparing NCWA-V arrears and if that is the position, according to Shri Varun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the situation is somersaulted. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') has challenged the award of the CGIT, Jabalpur (respondent No. 1) and has contended that this peculiar position has not been considered by the authority and did not pay any heed to it.

(2.) There is no scintilla of doubt since it is well settled principle of law that a "school is an industry and the teachers are not the workman" as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). Learned Counsel for the workman by inviting my attention to the definition of the workman envisaged under Sec. 2(s) of the Act has vehemently argued that if this definition is kept in juxtaposition to Annexure P/5 dated 2/5.4.1996, office order dated 7.5.1996 and 8.5.1996, it can safely be said that the duties which are being discharged by the workman are not purely of a teacher but his duty would come under the ambit and sweep of the definition of the workman envisaged under Sec. 2(s) of the Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to re-write the definition of workman defined under the Act which reads thus: