SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 759

1996(3) Supreme 734
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Haryana Unrecognised Schools
Association -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7114 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2984 of 1993)
Decided on 12-4-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Minimum Wages Act and the State Government in exercise of powers under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers.

Headnote:Minimum Wages Act-Sections 2(i), 3 & 27-Expression employee -Scope-Whether teachers of an educational institution can be brought within the purview of the Act?-(No) -Appropriate Government cannot fix minimum wage of such teachers by issuing notification under the Act.

       Held : There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that while construing the provisions of a statute like Minimum Wages Act a beneficial interpretation has to be preferred which advances the object of the Act. But nevertheless it has to be borne in mind that the beneficial interpretation should relate only to those employments which are intended to be covered by the Act and not to others. (Para 8)

       Further held that the State Government can add to either Part of the Schedule any employment where persons are employed for hire or reward to do any work skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical. If the persons employed do not do the work of any skilled or unskilled or of a manual or clerical nature then it would not be possible for the State Government to include such an employment in the Schedule in exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act, Since the teachers of an educational institution are not employed to do any skilled or unskilled or manual or clerica work and therefore could not be held to be an employee under Section 2(i) of the Act, it is beyond the competence of the State Government to bring them under the purview of the Act by adding the employment in educational institution in the Schedule in exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act. (Para 9)

       

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3599 of 1983 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.

3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employee under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to enable the Government to fix their minimum wages? The Government of Haryana in exercise of power conferred under Section 27 of the Act added in Part I of the Schedule Item No. 40 describing "Employment in private coaching classes, schools including Nursery Schools and technical institutions", for the purpose of fixing minimum rate of wages for the employees therein. By Notification dated 30th of April, 1983 the State Government in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act fixed the minimum rate of wages in respect of the different categories of employees serving in such schools. Challenging these notifications the writ petitions were filed essentially on the ground that the teachers of educational institution cannot come within the purview of the Act since they are not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act nor would they be employee under Section 2(i) of the Act. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the power of the State Government to add any employment to the Schedule under Section 27 of the Act is without any fetter and further the appropriate Government has tried to mitigate the sufferings and exploitation of the educated trained/untrained teachers at the hands of the managements/employers of the private educational institutions and Section 5 of the Act gives large powers to the appropriate Government. With regard to the allegation of the writ petitioners that the views of the representatives of the educational institutions were not taken into consideration, the High Court repelled the same relying upon the decision of this Court in Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation and another v. Tiffin s Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and another1, wherein this Court had observed that a notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial grounds and the legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of State Policies and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.

4. Assailing the correctness of the decision of the High Court the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the object of the Act being to prevent exploitation of the workers and for that purpose it aims at fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay, the teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Act. The learned counsel also contended that the definition of employee under Section 2(i) of the Act .even if is given a liberal interpretation, will not bring within its sweep a teacher of an educational institution since the duty discharged by a teacher can neither be termed as manual or clerical nor can it be held to be skilled or unskilled. Accordingly it is contended that the State Government has no power to fix the minimum wage of a teacher of an educational institution in exercise of power under Section 5(2) read with Section 27 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that it was open for the State Government to add a particular category of employment to the Schedule in exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act and since the Management of the schools are exploiting the teachers the State Government to mitigate the grievances of the teachers has fixed minimum wage under Section 5(2) of the Act and therefore the same should not be interferred wit


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top