( 1 ) CIVIL Application is filed by the Respondent. This Civil Application and the main petition are heard together and they being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) MEDHASAN Gram Panchayat has filed the main petition to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 992 of 1993 and the order passed in Misc. Application No. 22 of 1995 in Reference No. 992/1993 whereas the Civil application No. 1391 of 1998 is filed by Respondent Kanchanben Shankarlal Pandya seeking the vacation of the stay order and to award wages under Sec. 17 B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT Kanchanben Shankarlal was working as a Head-mistress in the Bal mandir run by the petitioner Gram Panchayat since 1. 2. 1977. The respondent had sent an application seeking leave from 1. 7. 1992 to 30. 12. 1992 and did not attend her duty though there was no sanction of leave sought. But even after 30. 12. 1992, she did not resume her duty. Then on 4. 8. 1992 a show cause notice was issued to her as to why her service should not be terminated. Thereafter on 30. 9. 1992 the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution terminating her services. Thereafter the respondent Kanchanben approached but she was not taken on her job. She thereafter raised an industrial dispute. Hence the reference No. 992/1993 was referred to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad.

( 4 ) SAID reference was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and he was pleased to allow the same by passing an exparte award on 5. 8. 1994. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 1132 of 1995 to challenge the said exparte award. But the petitioner was advised to file application under Rule 26 A before the Labour Court hence he withdrew that petition in order to file such application. Accordingly he filed misc. Civil Application No. 62/95. The Labour Court was pleased to reject the same on 8. 11. 1995. Hence the petitioner has come before this Court.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner urged before me that the award in question is illegal and invalid. He urged before me that the respondent was admittedly working as a teacher. She was holding the post of Head Mistress when her services were brought to an end. Mr. Chari urged before me that a teacher cannot be a "workman". Consequently the dispute in question regarding the termination of the services between the petitioner and respondent could not be a dispute between an "employer" and a "workman" as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the controversy/ dispute as regards the termination of the services. He cited before me the case of A Sundarambal vs. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu, AIR 1988 sc 1701. As against this learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Pandya urged before me that when the Government had made the reference to the Labour Court under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. this Court must hold that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the disputes. He further submitted that the employees of the Gram Panchayat could be workmen under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute of the fact that respondent Kanchanben was recruited as a teacher in the Bal Mandir run by the petitioner Gram Panchayat and at the time of her termination she was holding the post of Head-Mistress. As per the provisions of Sec. 2 (s) a person who is employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clercial work for hire or reward would become a "workman". A teacher could not be said to be doing either manual or clerical work. If the nature and the manner of duties of a teacher whether primary or per-primary it is impossible to say that it will fall in the category of either manual work or clerical work or technical work. The work which a teacher does is a noble work. They impart culture and education on young children and make them civilised and cultured citizens of the countr