A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu AIR 1988 SC 1700

Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu (1988) Case Study

Introduction

1. The case of Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu is a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1988. This case dealt with the issue of whether a teacher employed in a private school could be considered a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Facts of the Case

1. The appellant Sundarambal, a teacher employed in a private school, was terminated from her service and therefore sought relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming that she was a workman and hence, entitled to protection under the Act.

Case History 

1. The Petition was filed before the Conciliation Officer where Conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer reported this matter to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu. 
2. The Government could not adjudicate this matter under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 while holding that the appellant (Teacher) does not come within the ambit of the Workmen. Therefore the appellant approached before the High Court for issue of a writ of Mandamus to the Government to adjudicate the case under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
3. High Court: dismissed appeal therefore present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

1. Whether educational institutions comes under the definition of Industry.
2. Whether a teacher could be classified as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 

Arguments for the Appellant (Sundarambal)

1. It was argued that a teacher performs skilled and technical work and should be considered a workman under the definition provided in the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Sundarambal's dismissal was without just cause, and she was entitled to protection under the Act.

Reasoning 

1. The Court while considering the Banglore water supply case, 1978 said educational institutions come under the ambit of the Industry.
2. The primary function of a teacher is imparting education which can not be considered as skilled or unskilled manual workers or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. 
3. The court held that a teacher does not fall within the definition of a workman as provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the nature of the job performed by a teacher is distinct from the types of work listed in the definition, such as manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. 
4. Nature of Teaching Profession: The Court emphasized the noble nature of the teaching profession, which involves the intellectual and moral development of students.
5. Teaching is more of a professional service than an industrial activity, and thus, teachers do not fit within the industrial workforce envisioned by the Act.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed but the Court on the ground of Social justice said to set an inquiry into such matters to protect teacher's rights and the Court ordered to Govt. of Goa and Daman Diu to take necessary steps to bring into force appropriate legislation which provides legislation for adjudication of disputes between teachers and management of the educational institutions.

 Significance

1. The decision in Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu is significant because it clarified the legal position regarding the status of teachers under labor laws. This ruling established that teachers in private schools are not considered workmen and hence are not entitled to seek remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act for issues related to employment termination or disputes.

Conclusion

1. The Sundarambal case is a landmark judgment that underscores the distinction between professional services and industrial work. By ruling that teachers are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court highlighted the unique and professional nature of teaching, which stands apart from the categories of employment covered by the Act. 
2. This case continues to be a reference point for similar disputes involving the classification of employees under labor laws in India.

Definition of the Workmen

Section 2(S) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: any person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.