Special Leave Petition Civil No 6495 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 351988 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No 206388
KK Gupta for the Petitioner
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The short point which arises for consideration in this case is whether without a prior agreement between two or more Regional Transport Authorities through which an inter regional route passes it is open to any one of the said Regional Transport Authorities to grant a permit to ply a stage carriage on the said inter regional route under the provisions of the hereinafter referred to as the 
After the opening of the Mahatama Gandhi Sethu  connecting South Bihar and North Bihar by road there was a great need for granting permits to operate stage carriage services between places which are situated in North Bihar and the places in South Bihar
Therefore in order to satisfy the demand of the travelling public the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for granting stage carriage permits in respect of inter regional routes connecting certain places situated within its jurisdiction and certain other places which are situated within the 596 jurisdiction of South Bihar Regional Transport Authority
A number of applications were received for the grant of the permits on the said inter regional routes
The North Bihar Regional Transport Authority issued notices to all the persons concerned stating that the said applications would be taken up for consideration at its meeting to be held on 7th April 1988
The petitioner who was operating some stage carriages on some of the inter regional routes filed a writ petition in CWJC No 2063 of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Patna questioning the power of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority to grant permits on the inter regional routes without a prior agreement between it and the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority and obtained an order of stay of the said proceedings from the High Court on 6th April 1988 pending disposal of the Writ Petition
The Writ Petition was heard by the High Court on 351988 and it was dismissed
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the Petitioner has filed this petition
When the Writ Petition was filed before the High Court the petitioner did not implead the applicants who had made applications for the grant of stage carriage permits
The applicants however appeared before the High Court as interveners and made their submissions
They contended that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed since they the applicants for permits had not been impleaded as parties and that the contention of the petitioner that a prior agreement between the two Regional Transport Authorities was necessary before any one of them could grant a permit was erroneous
The High Court has upheld both the contentions
Under section 451 of the every application for a permit has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles but if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions Iying within the same State the application has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles
The application for stage carriage permit should contain the particulars required to be furnished under section 46 of the 
Section 57 of the provides for the procedure to be followed for granting permits
On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority should make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and is also 597 required to publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from such publication on which and the time and place at which the application and any representations received would be considered
The Regional Transport Authority should while considering an application for a stage carriage permit have regard to the matters specified in section 47 of the  namely the interest of the public generally the adequacy of the passengers the stage carriages operating or likely to operate in the near future whether by road or other means between the places to be served the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service etc
At the hearing it is open to any one of the parties who has objected to the grant of the permit to raise all contentions which are open to him under the including that there is no need for issuing the permit applied for under sub section 3 of section 47 of the a Regional Transport Authority may limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region
It has been held by this Court in Mohd Ibrahim etc
vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras etc that sub section 3 of section 47 is confined in its operation to the permits under which the stage carriages are to be operated between two or more places within the same region and that section 473 does not apply to applications for inter State permits or to inter regional permits
We shall refer to this decision again at a later stage
The relevant part of section 63 of the reads thus 63
Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted 1 Except as may be otherwise prescribed a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned
        2 A Regional Transport Authority when counter 598 signing the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted
3 The provisions of the Chapter relating to the grant revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of counter signatures of permits where the permits granted in any one State are required to be counter signed by the State Trans port Authority of another State or by the Regional Trans port Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of sub section 3 A or for the grant of countersignatures of permits in pursuance of any direction issued by the Commission under clause c of sub section 2 of section 63 A A reading of the provisions of section 63 of the  extracted above shows that in the absence of any rules to the contrary framed under the a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region is not valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region and a permit granted in any one State is not valid in any other State unless it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State or of the Regional Transport Authority concerned
When countersigning a permit it is open to the Regional Transport Authority of the other region to impose its own conditions which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit
The provisions of Chapter IV relating to the grant revocation or suspension of permits apply to the grant revocation or suspension of the countersignature of the permits also
If there are any rules framed by the State Government under the they shall supersede the provisions of section 63 of the and the rules framed in that regard have to be followed by the Transport Authorities in the case of inter regional permits
If There is an agreement between the States concerned with regard to the grant and the countersignature of the permits then it is not necessary to comply with the procedure prescribed by section 63 of the for countersignature of permits
No rule framed under the by the State of Bihar with 599 regard to the procedure to be followed in the case of countersignature of permits has been brought to our notice
We shall therefore proceed on the basis that the provisions of section 63 of the would be applicable to all inter regional permits in the State of Bihar
Since section 473 is held to be inapplicable to inter State permits or inter regional permits it is open to the Regional Transport Authority concerned to decide the question whether there is any necessity to issue the permit applied for at the time of consideration of the application for the grant of a permit in the light of the representations made before the Regional Transport Authority by the applicants objectors and other concerned parties
In Mohd Ibrahim etc
vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras etc supra dealing with the question whether there was any necessity for a prior determination of the maximum number of stage carriages which can be permitted to operate on an inter State route this Court observed at page 483 of the Report thus These provisions establish that in the case of an inter State permit an application has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of a State as mentioned in section 45 of the and the permit is to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as mentioned in section 63 of the 
Chapter IV consists of sections 42 to 68
Section 57 deals with procedure for application and grant of permits
That section will therefore apply for the grant of inter State permits
The effect of the proviso to section 633 is that in the case of inter State permits where an agreement has been arrived at between the State the provisions of section 57 of the need not be followed for the grant of countersignatures of permits
In other cases the procedure in section 57 of the will apply in regard to grant revocation and suspension of permits and to  countersignatures of permits as well
Section 48 of the which relates to power to grant of stage carriage permits will also apply to inter State permits
The provisions contained in sub section 1 generally and sub section 2 of section 47 will apply to the Regional Transport Authority at the time of consideration of the application for inter State stage carriage permit
Section 473 of the will not in our opinion apply to inter State permits because that provision relates to a Regional transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits 600 may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region underlining by us The Court proceeded to observe In other words section 473 of the is confined in its operation in or within the region
The provisions of section 473 of the do not apply to inter State permits because an inter State permit cannot be effective unless it is countersigned by the Authority of the other State
The suggestion that in regard to inter State permits a limit has to be fixed in regard to number of stage carriages for inter State routes will have the effect of adding words to the provisions in section 473 of the 
That will not be the proper way of giving effect to section 473 of the 
It will be misreading section 473 of the if it will be applied to inter State permits
The combined effect of sections 63 63 A 63 B and 63 C is that the inter State Commission will deal with inter State permits
The Central Government under section 63 C of the is authorised to make rules in regard to the procedure to be followed in considering an application for grant and countersignature 
Of permits
In the absence of specific rules the best way of harmonising the powers and functions is to allow these inter State authorities to exercise their power within their respective spheres in regard to grant and countersignature of permits by agreement and accord  underlining by us
The last sentence in the above extract of the judgment contains only a suggestion made by the Court to the inter State authorities concerned regarding the manner in which the inter State authorities should exercise their powers with regard to the grant and countersignature of permits to avoid any possible difference of opinion between them
It does not
however require a Regional Transport Authority in one State to enter into an agreement with the Regional Transport Authority in the other State before granting an inter state permit under the 
The observation referred to above is not a part of the ratio of the decision
It may also be noted that a similar observation is not made by the court while dealing with the case of an inter regional permit within a State
In fact in the case of inter State permits there is 601 already an express provision enabling two or more States to enter into an inter State agreement
In the same decision at Pages 483 484 the Court made the following observations in respect of inter regional permits In the case of inter regional permits an application under section 45 of the has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles
Then under section 63 of the a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region
Section 633 of the makes the provisions of Chapter IV applicable relating to the grant revocation and suspension of permits to the grant revocation and suspension of countersignature of permits
The result is that sections 47 to 68 which occur in Chapter IV are therefore attracted in case of inter regional permits
In view of the fact that section 473 of the is restricted in its field in or within the region the provisions in terms do not become applicable to inter regional permits
Section 68 of the contemplates rules and conditions subject to which and the extent to which a permit shall be valid in another region within the State without countersignature
We have not been shown any rules to that effect
The reasons which do not make section 473 applicable to inter State permit apply proprio vigore to inter regional permits
 It is significant that the does not contain any procedure for two or more Regional Transport Authorities entering into an agreement before an application for an inter regional permit is granted
The only provision which provides for an agreement to be arrived at for purposes of countersignatures is the agreement between two or more States referred to in the first proviso to sub section 3 of section 63 of the 
An inter State agreement of that nature can be arrived at only after following the procedure prescribed under sub section 3 A of section 63 of the which provides for the publication of the proposal to enter into an agreement between the concerned States in the official Gazette and calling for representations in connection therewith 602 from the affected parties and also the publication of the time and place at which the proposal or any representation is received in connection therewith will be considered by the Government concerned
At that stage it is open to the parties who are affected by the proposal to make all representations which they wish to make including the representation that there is no necessity to introduce any more stage carriages on the inter State routes in question
In one sense the procedure prescribed in sub section 3 A of section 63 of the takes the place of the procedure to be followed by a Regional Transport Authority while granting or counter signing permits
If any State Government is of opinion that in the case of inter regional permits within its territory there should be a similar agreement between the Regional Transport Authorities concerned before granting any inter regional permit it may frame appropriate rules providing fur publication of the proposal to enter into an agreement inviting objections to the proposal and hearing objections and representations of the affected parties by the concerned Regional Transport Authorties before entering into any such agreement
In the absence of any such rules being there it is open to the affected parties to raise the contention that there is no necessity to issue any additional inter regional permit before the Regional Transport Authority to which application for the grant of a permit is made as well as the Regional Transport Authority to which an application for counter signature of the permit is made
In the instant case since there is no provision in the or in the Rules made by the State Government requiring the existence of such a prior agreement it is difficult to hold that in the absence of such a prior agreement between the Regional Transport Authorities concerned an application for the grant of an inter regional permit should not be taken up for consideration by a Regional Transport Authority which has the jurisdiction to grant it under section 45 of the 
If a permit is issued by a Regional Transport Authority and it is not countersigned by the other Regional Transport Authority the permit will not be effective in the other region
What we have observed above is in accord with the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ms Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company Nowgaon vs Behari Lal Chaurasia and Another  In that case at Page 492 the Constitution Bench has observed thus Under section 63 a permit granted by the Regional Trans port Authority of one region is not valid in any other region unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region
The 603 clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit has jurisdiction and when it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region the permit becomes valid for the entire route
We are unable to agree with counsel for the respondent that the permit has no validity whatever until it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region  The North Bihar Regional Transport Authority has therefore jurisdiction to consider the applications for the grant of the inter regional permits in question
After they are granted it is open to the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority to consider whether they should be countersigned or not after following the prescribed procedure
The High Court was therefore right in dismissing the Writ Petition
This Special Leave petition therefore fails and it is dismissed
SL Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a school teacher and her services were terminated by the Management
She made several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled but without success
Ultimately she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation officer under the Act
The conciliation proceedings failed and the conciliation officer reported accordingly to the Government
The Government considered the question of referring the matter for adjudication under section 10 of the Act But on reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman  as defined in the Act
it declined to make a reference
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court for issue of
a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Government to make a reference under section 101c of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services
The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the appellant was not a workman
This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal this Court  HELD 11 Even though an educational institution has to be treated as an industry the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary secondary graduate or post graduate education cannot be called as workmen  within the meaning of section 2s 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
A teacher educates children he moulds their character builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens
Children grow under the care of teachers
The clerical work if any they may do is only incidental to their principal work of teaching
608B C 610A C 605 12 If an employee in an industry is not a person engaged in doing work falling in any of the categories as mentioned in Section 2s of the Act he would not be a workman at all even though he is employed in an industry
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 2s of the Act should be treated as workmen
The acceptance of this argument will render the words to do any skilled or unskilled manual supervisory technical or clerical work  meaningless
A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible only in the absence of these words
609C D 611C E Bangalore Water Supply  Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa  others   relied on
2 University of Delhi  Anr
vs Ram Nath  and May and Baker India Ltd vs Their Workmen referred to
Teachers as a class cannot be denied the benefits of social justice
It is necessary to provide for an appropriate machine y so that teachers may secure what is rightly due to them
In a number of States in India laws have been passed for enquiring into the validity of illegal and unjust terminations of service of teachers by providing for appointment of judicial tribunals to decide such cases
It is time that State of Goa takes necessary steps to bring into force legislation providing for adjudication of disputes between teachers and the Managements of educational institutions
611F G At the instance of this Court the Management of the School agreed to pay the appellant Rs40000 which this Court directed to be paid in 6 monthly instalments commencing from September 1988 612B