Does it matter that a school is an ‘industry’?

Even if a school counts as an industry, teachers do not become workmen because their primary duty is imparting education.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Sundarambal?

It agreed with the High Court that teachers are not workmen; clerical tasks they do are incidental to teaching.

Can teachers use the ID Act for dismissal disputes?

Not as ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s). Their remedies lie outside the ID Act framework.

What is the key test for ‘workman’?

Nature of main duties: they must be manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory—not teaching.

Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa (1989) 1 LLJ 61

Q: Is a teacher a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, 1947?

No. Teaching is not manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work under Section 2(s).

Quick Summary

Main Question: Is a school teacher a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court held that teaching is not manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work. So, teachers are not “workmen” under the ID Act.

Issues

Is a school an “industry” under the ID Act?
Are teachers “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act?

Rules

Workman test: The person must mainly do manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work. Teaching does not fit these categories; any clerical tasks teachers do are incidental to teaching.

Facts (Timeline)

Simple Timeline

A teacher’s services were terminated by the school management.

Conciliation under the ID Act failed; report sent to Government.

Government declined to refer the dispute under Section 10, saying the teacher was not a workman.

Teacher filed a writ in Bombay High Court seeking a reference to Labour Court.

High Court dismissed the writ; teacher appealed to the Supreme Court by SLP.

Timeline for Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa

Arguments

Appellant (Teacher)

School functions like an industry; dispute should be referred.
Some tasks are clerical/supervisory; hence covered by Section 2(s).

Government/Management

Teaching is a distinct intellectual function, not within Section 2(s).
Any clerical work is incidental, not the main duty.

Judgment

The Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court. Even if a school may be treated as an industry, a teacher is not a “workman” because the main duty—imparting education—is neither manual, clerical, technical, nor supervisory under Section 2(s). Any clerical work is only incidental.

Ratio Decidendi

Nature of core duty decides “workman” status. Because teaching is outside the listed categories in Section 2(s), teachers are not workmen under the ID Act.

Why It Matters

Clarifies teachers’ legal route for service disputes is outside the ID Act.
Separates the idea of an industry from who counts as a workman.
Guides schools and teachers on the correct forum for remedies.

Key Takeaways

Teaching ≠ 2(s)

Teaching is not manual/clerical/technical/supervisory.

Incidental Work

Clerical tasks don’t change the main nature of teaching.

Right Forum

Teachers must seek remedies outside the ID Act.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Teach ≠ 2(s)”

Find the Core: What is the main duty? (Teaching)
Match to List: Manual/Clerical/Technical/Supervisory?
Decide: If not on list → not a “workman”.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Does a teacher qualify as a “workman” under Section 2(s)?

Rule: Only those mainly doing manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work are “workmen”.

Application: Teaching is the core function; any clerical tasks are incidental, not dominant.

Conclusion: Teacher is not a “workman”; refusal to refer under Section 10 was justified.

Glossary

Workman (ID Act): A person mainly doing manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work for hire/reward, excluding managerial/administrative roles.
Incidental Duties: Smaller tasks that support the main job but do not define it.
Reference (S.10): Government sending a dispute to a Labour Court/Tribunal for adjudication.