http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/04/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1996 AIR 2108            1996 SCC  (4) 225  JT 1996 (4)   363        1996 SCALE  (3)685

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      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.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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 another  (S.C.C. 1985 (3) 594), 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.      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 interfered with. It may  be    noted  that  the  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant   in course of his argument has submitted that the association which  filed the  Writ  petition  and  which  is appellant before  us consist  of  teachers  and  if  teacher themselves do  not urge  to be brought within the purview of the Act  there was  no need for the Government to bring them within the purview of the Act.      In view  of rival  submissions  at  the  Bar  the  only question that  crops up  for consideration  is  whether  the teachers of an educational institution can be brought within the purview  of the  Act and  the appropriate Government can fix  the   minimum  wage   of  such   teachers  by   issuing notification under the Act?      The Statements  of  Objects  and  Reasons  of  the  Act justifying the  statutory fixation  of minimum  wage  states thus:      "The  justification  for  statutory      fixation  of   minimum   wages   is      obvious.  Such   provisions   which      exist in  more  advanced  countries      are even  more necessary  in India,      where workers  organization are yet      poorly developed  and the  workers’      bargaining  power  is  consequently      poor."      In introducing  the Bill  it had  been stated  that the items in the Schedule are those where sweated labour is most

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

prevalent or where there is  a big chance of exploitation of labour. The  Act had  been passed  for the welfare of labour deriving  legislative   competence  from   Item  27  of  the Concurrent List in the Seventh schedule to the Government of India Act,  1935. The  object  of  the  Act  is  to  prevent exploitation of  the workers and for that purpose it aims at fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay. This Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of M/s. Bhikusa Yamasa  Kshatriya and  another  v.  Sangamner  Akola Taluka Bidi  Kamgar Union and others (1963 (2) SCC 242) held that:      "The  object   of  the  Act  is  to      prevent   exploitation    of    the      workers, and  for that  purpose  it      aims at  fixation of  minimum wages      which the  employers must  Pay. The      Legislate undoubtedly  intended  to      apply the  Act to  those industries      or localities in which by reason of      causes such  as unorganised  labour      or   absence   of   machinery   for      regulation of wages, the wages paid      to workers  were, in  the light  of      the general  level  of  wages,  and      subsistence   level,    inadequate.      Conditions  of   labour   vary   in      different   industries   and   from      locality  to   locality   and   the      expediency of fixing minimum wages,      and  the   rates  thereof   depends      largely upon  diverse factors which      in their  very nature  are variable      and can  properly be ascertained by      the Government  which is  in charge      of the administration of the State.      It is  to carry out effectively the      purpose  of   this  enactment  that      power  has   been  given   to   the      appropriate  Government  to  decide      with reference to local conditions,      whether  it   is   desirable   that      minimum wages  should be  fixed  in      regard to  any scheduled  trade  or      industry, in  any locality,  and if      it be  deemed expedient  to do  so.      the rates at which the wages should      be  fixed   in  respect   of   that      industry in the locality."      There cannot  be any  dispute with the proposition that while construing  t he  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. Section J of the Act provides  that the  appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter  provided fix  the minimum rates of wages payable to  employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to  either  Part  by  notification  under  section  27.  The expression ’employee’  has been  defined in  Section 2(i) of the Act thus:      "employee" means  any person who is      employed for  hire or  reward to do      any  work,  skilled  or  unskilled,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    manual or  clerical, in a scheduled      employment  in   respect  of  which      minimum rates  of wages  have  been      fixed, and includes an outworker to      whom any  articles or materials are      given out  by another  person to be      made up,  cleaned, washed, altered,      ornamented,   finished,   repaired,      adapted or  otherwise processes for      sale for  the purposes of the trade      or business  of that  other  person      where the  process is to be carried      out either  in the home of the out-      worker or  in some  other  premises      not  being   premises   under   the      control  and   management  of  that      other person;  and also includes an      employee declared to be an employee      by the  appropriate Government, but      does not  include any member of the      Armed Forces of the Union.      Section 27  enables the  State  Government  to  add  to either part  of the  Schedule any  employment in  respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Act. Section 27 reads thus:      "The appropriate  Government  after      giving  by   notification  in   the      Official  Gazette   not  less  than      three   months’   notice   of   its      intention  so   to  do,   may,   by      notification, add to either Part of      the  Schedule   any  employment  in      respect of  which it  is of opinion      that minimal rates of stages should      be  fixed   under  this   Act,  and      thereupon the Schedule shall in its      application to  the State be deemed      to be amended accordingly."      A combined  reading of the aforesaid provisions as well as the  object of  the legislation as indicated earlier make it explicitly  clear 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 clerical 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.  This  Court  while  examining  the question whether  the  teachers  employed  in  a  school  is workmen under  Industrial Disputes  Act had observed in Miss A. Sundarambal  v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and others (1988 (4) SCC 42) :      We  are   of  the   view  that  the      teachers  employed  by  educational      institutions   whether   the   said      institutions are imparting primary,      secondary,   graduate    or   post-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    graduate education cannot be called      as workmen  within the  meaning  of      Section 2(s)  of the Act. Imparting      of  education  which  is  the  main      junction  of   teachers  cannot  be      construed as  skilled or  unskilled      manual  work   or  clerical   work.      Imparting of  education is  an  the      nature of  a  mission  or  a  noble      vocation.   A    teacher   educates      children he moulds their character,      builds  up  their  personality  and      makes them  fit become  responsible      citizens. Children  grow under care      of teachers.  The clerical work, if      any they may do, is only incidental      to their principal of teaching."      Applying the  aforesaid dictum  to  the  definition  of employee under Section 2(i) of the Act it may be held that a teacher should  not come  within the said definition. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the teachers of  an educational  institution cannot  be  brought within the  purview of  the Act  and the State Government in exercise of  powers under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers. The impugned notifications so far as the teachers of the educational institution concerned are  accordingly  quashed.  This  appeal  is  allowed.  Writ petition filed succeeds to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs.