Back
1981 Supreme(Ker) 134
Judges : V.KHALID
MUTHAYYAN - Appellant
Versus
MANAGER, KADALUR ESTATE - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 3301 of 1979
Decided On : 07/13/1981
Advocates Appeared :
M.V. Joseph; E.M. Thomas; For Petitioner Menon; Pai; For Respondents
The main legal point established was the importance of making decisions based on evidence and providing both parties with the opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.
Headnote:
workman - school teacher - The court considered whether a school teacher could be classified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment highlighted the changing outlook on the relationship between employer and employee and the impact of the Bangalore Water Supply Case on industrial relations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher at a primary school, was dismissed from service and claimed to be a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a proper decision required a finding based on evidence and allowed the petitioner to adduce evidence. The case was remitted back for re-consideration in accordance with law and evidence.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, as a school teacher, could be considered a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a decision based on evidence and the opportunity for both parties to adduce evidence and be heard before final orders are passed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous decision and remitted the case back for re-consideration in accordance with law and evidence, providing both parties with the opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.
1. Is a school teacher a workman? Such a question two decades ago would have astonished many and irritated some. But today nobody will feel either surprise or astonishment at such a question. This is the metamorphosis that has been brought in the outlook of man in the relationship between employer and employee by the Bangalore Water Supply Case. That case has opened up new vistas in industrial relations which could not have been thought of even when the Industrial Disputes Act was passed. The question posed in this petition is a sequel to some observations in the above judgment.
2. The petitioner was a teacher in the primary school at Kadalur Estate from 7-1-1959. He was dismissed from service with effect from 12-10-1970. His case was that he was a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). He was employed in the Estate and was included in the check
9. At present I do not have all the materials before me except a layman's information about the functions of a teacher in a school. A finding on evidence would be the proper decision. The petitioner's counsel submits that he should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. I hold that this request has to be allowed. I, therefore, quash Ext. P1 and remit the case back to the 2nd respondent for re-consideration of the question in accordance with law and evidence and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The 2nd respondent will give sufficient opportunity to both the petitioner and the 1st respondent to adduce evidence and to be heard before final orders are passed. No costs.
