Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a teacher employed in a school falls within the definition of the expression workman as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The appellant, Miss A. Sundarambal, was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary at Caranzalem, Goa. Her services were terminated by the Management by a letter dated 25th April, 1975. After she failed in her several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled, she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the Act. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu by his letter dated 2nd May, 1982. On receipt of the report the Government considered the question whether it could refer the matter for adjudication under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act but on reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman as defined in the Act which alone would have converted a dispute into an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k) of the Act, it declined to make a reference. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to make a reference under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services. The said writ petition was registered as Special Leave Application No. 59 of 1983. That petition was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not a workman by its judgment dated 5th Sept. 1983*. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

* Reported in (1983) 2 Lab LJ 491 (Bom).

3. Two questions arise for consideration in this case; (1) whether the school, in which the appellant was working, was an industry, and (2), whether the appellant was a workman employed in that industry. It is, however, not disputed that if the appellant was not a workman no reference under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act could be sought.

4. The first question need not detain us long. In University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1964) 2 SCR 703 : a bench consisting of three learned Judges of this Court held that the University of Delhi, which was an educational institution and Miranda House, a college affiliated to the said University, also being an educational institution would not come within the definition of the expression industry as defined in S. 2(j) of the Act. Section 2(j) of the Act states that industry means any business, trade, undertaking manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) who decided the said case, held that the educational institutions which were predominantly engaged in teaching could not be considered as industries within the meaning of the said expression in S. 2(j) of the Act and, therefore, a driver who was employed by the Miranda House could not be considered as a workman employed in an industry. The above decision came up for consideration in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 3 SCR 207: before a larger bench of this Court. In that case the decision in University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (AIR 1963 SC 1873) (supra) was overruled. Krishna Iyer, J. who delivered the majority judgment observed at page 283 (of SCR) of the Report thus :

"(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves, employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not workmen as in the University of Delhi Case or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and th