UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. VS. RAM NATH
Bench: Justice K.C Das Gupta, K.N Wanchoo and P>B Gajendragadkar
Issue:
Whether ‘Educational Institutions’ would come within the meaning of ‘Industry’.
Facts:
Ram Nath and Asgar Masih were providing their services as bus drivers in Miranda House, University College for Women. Appellants terminated the services of Respondent on the ground that the running of the buses for girl students had resulted in a loss. This appeal by special leave arose out of the petition filed against University of Delhi and Principal, Miranda House, University College for Women claiming retrenchment amount under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the respondent services were no longer required. The petitions made by the respondents were resisted by Appellant no.1on the ground that Appellant no. 1 was not an employer under section 2(g),that the work carried on by it was not an industry under section 2(j) and the applications made under section 33C(2) were incompetent. The tribunal rejected the objections contended by the Appellants and passed an order in favor of the respondents directing the Appellants to pay retrenchment compensation. Validity of the award was challenged under Supreme Court.
Findings :
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the final judgment stated that it could not have been the policy of the Act to treat education as an industry for benefit of a very minor and insignificant number of subordinate staff. Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act defines an industry as any business, trade, under-taking, manufacture or calling of employers and any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen does not include education work as the subordinate staff plays a minor part. It is true that like all educational institutions the University of Delhi employs subordinate staff and this subordinate staff does the work assigned to it; but in the main scheme of imparting education, this subordinate staff plays such a minor, subsidiary and insignificant part that it would be unreasonable to allow this work to lend its industrial color to the principal activity of the University which is imparting education. The work of promoting education is carried on by the University and its teachers and if the teachers are excluded from the purview of the Act, it would be unreasonable to regard the work of imparting education as industry only because its minor, subsidiary and incidental work may seem to partake of the character of service which may fall under s. 2(j)
