Anita vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

A.K. Mathur, J.—Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 20th June, 1988, Ex. 6 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to make a reference before the Labour Court. It is also prayed that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 may be directed to reinstate the petitioner as teacher.

Petitioner is a M.A. in Economics and she was appointed as primary teacher on the fixed pay of Rs. 330/- in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, by the respondent No. 4. On 26th of August, 1984, petitioner joined the post and thereafter from time to time the appointment of the petitioner was extended, but petitioner''s services were terminated on 30th September, 1985, without assigning any reason. Petitioner raised an Industrial dispute and the respondents declined to make a reference on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was on the fixed term, therefore, it is not a retrenchment in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the Hon''ble Supreme Court took the view that teachers are not workman, therefore, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the teachers. Therefore, petitioner filed amended writ petition and raised the ground that the termination order of the petitioner may be quashed.

A return has been filed by the respondents and it has been pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and same was terminated on account of the fact that the regularly selected candidates were made available. Therefore the services of the petitioner were terminated. Since the petitioner is a teacher and in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Others, , that the teachers do not fall in the definition ''workman'' as given under the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the respondents are not under any obligation to refer the matter under Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal. But so far as simplicate termination of the petitioner''s services are concerned, the regularly selected candidates have been made available and petitioner was not selected, therefore, petitioner cannot make any grievance of her termination. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and same is dismissed.