Civil Writ Petition No. 22112 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 22112 of 2010 Date of decision : 13.12.2010 Darshan Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner concededly was employed by the respondent as Tabla player and was designated as Tabla master. His services were regularised on 04.03.1987. He was directed to pass matriculation examination. In the year 1987, his services were terminated. He sought reference of the dispute regarding his termination and the same was referred to the labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed a claim statement on 21.10.1997 in which the management-respondent has taken a specific objection about the maintainability of reference on the ground that the petitioner being a teacher and having been appointed as Tabla master would not covered under the definition of workman. The labour Court has declined the reference by holding that teachers are not workmen though educational institution may be an industry for some persons, who are performing some such duties of workmen. To substantiate this plea, the management had placed reliance on the case of Miss A. Sundarameal verus Government of Goa, Civil Writ Petition No. 22112 of 2010 2 Daman and Diu and others, 1988 (4) SCC 42 . As held in this case, in order to be a workman a person should be one who satisfies the following conditions:- “(i) he should be a person employed in an industry for hire or reward; (ii) he should be engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and (iii) he should not be a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e. (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of 'workman' in Section 2 (s) of the Act. The definition also provides that a workman employed in an industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, an industrial dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute. xx xx xx If an employee in an industry is not a person engaged in doing work falling in any of these categories, he would not be a workman at all even though he is employed in an industry. The question for consideration before us is whether a teacher in a school falls under any of the four categories, namely, a person doing any skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If he does not satisfy any one of the above descriptions he would not be a workman even though he is an employee of an industry.” Civil Writ Petition No. 22112 of 2010 3 It is also observed that “ The question for consideration is whether even after the inclusion of the above two classes of employees in the definition of the expression 'workman' in the Act a teacher in a school can be called a workman. We are of the view that 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 2 (s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as a 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 citizen. Children grow under the care of teacher. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court for taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as 'workmen' as defined under the Act. 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. The acceptance of this Civil Writ Petition No. 22112 of 2010 4 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 in the absence of these words. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen precludes us from taking such a view. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant was not a 'workman' though the school was an industry in view of the definition 'workman' as now stands. The petitioner being Tabla master, was not performing any skilled or unskilled manual work in a school but was basically imparting training or teaching. The submission by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only a Tabla master and was designated as such would not change his position as a teacher. In my view, the petitioner was appointed as Tabla master and was working or performing the duties of teacher or which are akin to the teacher and so cannot be termed as workman. Dismissed. December 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE