Teachers in Educational Institutions Not 'Workmen' Under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The respondent was appointed as a craft teacher by the petitioner Ashram (a charitable trust) on 03.07.1996

The appointment was temporary and subject to approval by the State’s Social Security Department, which was extended periodically until 1999

Following three notices regarding unsatisfactory performance, the petitioner terminated the respondent’s services effective 01.04.2000

The respondent filed a reference (LCV No. 1215/2000) before the Labour Court, Vadodara. On 23.01.2007, the Labour Court allowed the reference, directing reinstatement with continuity and 75% back wages

The petitioner challenged this award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether a teacher employed by an educational or welfare institution falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Whether the petitioner Ashram, a charitable trust funded by government grants for the welfare of disabled women, constitutes an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act

3. Whether a question of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time in a writ petition if it was not raised before the lower court

The court primarily applied the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) and "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The principal nature of a teacher’s work—imparting education and moulding character—is a noble mission/vocation and does not constitute manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work as defined in the Act.

Gujarat Agriculture University v. Abdulmajid Mahemudmiya Kazi [2006 (1) G.L.H. 603], which followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu [AIR 1988 SC 1700].

The court reasoned that the respondent’s role as a craft teacher involved vocational training (sewing, painting, etc.) for mentally disabled women, which is educational rather than industrial in nature.

Applying the Sundarambal principle, the court found that since the respondent was a teacher, she could not be categorized as a "workman," rendering the Industrial Disputes Act inapplicable.

The court observed that the Ashram was a welfare center funded by government grants without commercial activity or a systematic employer-employee relationship typical of an "industry".

Addressing the procedural objection, the court held that a lack of jurisdiction goes to the "root of the matter" and can be raised at the writ stage to rectify orders that are fundamentally null and void.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Labour Court’s award dated 23.01.2007 and rejected the original Reference (LCV) No. 1215/2000.

Consequently, the respondent's claim for salary/wages for the period of 2022–2023 was also rejected.