Irac

Whether a teacher employed in a university is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Whether the appellant, who is a teacher asso professor and in-charge of
the communication in a university, given the nature of duties in the university, a workman in
the university under section 2(s) of the id act. ( the issue of skill/unskilled be added but that is
a risky thing to do)

Rule:
1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, section 2(s)
2. Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association Vs. Administrative officer and ors.
3. A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu
Analysis:
On analyzing the meaning o the statement ‘manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work’, as against the job of a teacher, it has been noted in the case of
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association Vs. Administrative officer that even if the
rest of the words are separately understood be qualifying the word work, the work of a
teacher doesn’t fall in the ambit of a teacher. The work of a teacher doesn’t fall in the
category of skilled or unskilled work according to the case as the teachers might be both
trained and untrained and the work of trained teacher doesn’t fall into the category of a
skilled employee according to industrial field and service jurisprudence as it is used for an
employee doing manual or technical work. Similarly, it doesn’t fall into the ambit of
unskilled work. According to Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu it doesn’t fall
into the category of technical clerical or supervisory or operational work. Imparting education
isn’t any of these but a noble profession and doesn’t fall into any of these categories.
According to the same two cases, any supervisory of managerial work that they do is not their
main work but only incidental to their main job of teaching and thus cannot be considered
while considering this case. Since mala’s duy here has two parts that in consonance with
eachother. Acc to ahemdaba ……………………………..
K,

Conclusion

Mala wont gent any redressal under the given act as she doesn’t fall into the category of as
workman given by the act. Also, any work that she does in a supervisory capacity cannot be
considered while applying this act as this work is only incidental to their main job of
teaching.

In the hypothetical, the question whether the university is or is not an industry is not a
question as the university never raised this question in its defense. In the real world that
might be a question but in the hypothetical that is not an issue.

How to frame the question- facts are more imp in irac.

In rue,we have to capture the essence of the rule