UMAPADA BHUI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: This writ petition has been made by the nine petitioners being teachers of different schools under Durgapur Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited originally appointed as 'master' under the Education Department of the Plant by the pen of Additional Chief Personnel Manager. They had challenged a Memorandum of Settlement on restructuring of non-executive work organisation relating to Education Department of Durgapur Steel Plant dated 29th August, 2002 duly signed by the Management of Steel Authority of India Limited, Durgapur Steel Plant on one hand and workmen of Durgapur Steel Plant represented by the three unions i.e. Hindusthan Steel Employees' Union, Hindusthan Steel Workers' Union and Durgapur Steel Shramik Union respectively on the other hand. There is no dispute as to the representative capacity of the said three unions. The dispute is whether the teachers can be treated as 'workmen', if not, the unions representing the 'workmen' cannot sign the Memorandum of Settlement on behalf of the teaching staffs of the said Plant. In such case the said Memorandum of Settlement has to be declared non est in the eye of law. Teaching staffs cannot be bound under such agreement. Services of the teachers are regulated by the statutory Rules framed for the purpose which cannot be overridden by the Memorandum of Settlement.

(2.) Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel, appearing in support of the petitioners cited two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1988(4) SCC 42 (Miss S. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu & Ors.) and 1984(1) LLJ 259 (Mr. Karthiyayani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) to establish that the teachers are not 'workmen'.

(3.) In the first cited judgment it was held by the Supreme Court by following Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa reported in 1978(2) SCC 213 that even though an educational institution has to be treated as an 'industry', teachers in an educational institution cannot be considered as 'workmen'. The teachers employed by educational institutions for imparting primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s) of the Act should be treated as 'workmen' as it will render the words ?to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work? meaningless.