Indian labour laws are multifaceted, encompassing diverse aspects such as working conditions, health and safety, equality, minimum wages, social security, and more. Interestingly, the applicability of these laws isn’t uniform across all sectors. This article delves into the complexities of these laws, focusing on their relevance and impact on the education sector. We examine the evolving definition of ‘industry’ in Indian labour laws and the implications this has for educational institutions and teachers.
Indian labour laws can be broadly classified into the following, based on the aspects they regulate:
- Working hours and conditions of service
- Health and safety
- Equality, minimum wages and social security benefits
- Termination and retrenchment
- Prevention of sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
When we look into various Labour laws in India, first we need to look into the ambit of an ‘industry’. Post Independence, there were different cases which from time to time defined that how various fields fall in the ambit of ‘industry’, like for example if we look in education sector, until 1978, based on the judgement of University of Delhi Vs Ramnath (1963)[1], Universities were not considered as an industry as primary object of an educational institution whether private or government funded, is to impart knowledge and to impart skills, Just because of the nobleness of the service being provided, the universities were not considered as an industry, therefore, no labour laws can be applied to them, but in 1978,came the judgement of Bangalore water supply vs A Rajappa and others(1978) [2], a significant case in India’s history of labour and industrial laws. This case aided in the clarification of what all activities constitute sovereign functions and in clarifying the concept of industry in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947[3]. It laid down three broad criteria or triple test, to define an ‘Industry’:
1. It should be a systematic activity.
2. There should be cooperation between employer and employee.
3. Goods or services must be produced.
In University of Delhi case, court said that on applying the “predominant character test” reveals that only a small number of employees at a university can be deemed “workmen,” hence the university cannot be categorised as an industry. It was made clear in Bangalore Water Supply that the primary character test pertains to the nature of the activity and not the personnel strength, and a university would in fact be regarded as an industry.
Now, though universities can be considered as an industry but still there’s confusion on whether teachers will be considered as workmen or not, the same was discussed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu (1988) [4],the Supreme Court took this into consideration. Teachers would not be regarded as workers, the court ruled. The court’s justification was two-tiered:
1. Imparting education is a noble vocation
2. Consequently, imparting education is not skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work.
The court stated in A. Sundarambal that teaching is a “noble vocation,” a teacher “moulds the character” of the students, and that teaching is not considered to be physical labour (skilled or unskilled), supervisory labour, technical labour, or clerical labour. The court does not, however, explain how a noble character prevents a vocation from fitting into any of the classifications listed in Section 2(s) of the Act.
Teachers are not regarded to be workers; hence they cannot take advantage of many social security laws. The Payment of Gratuity Act is one such piece of legislation. In Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer and Other (2004)[5], The question of “whether ‘Teacher’ could be regarded as an ’employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if so, whether he/she is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with the provisions of the Act” was discussed in court. According to the ruling, teachers who provide instruction to pupils are not considered “employees” under Section 2(e) of the Act because they don’t carry out any kind of manual, supervisory, management, administrative, technical, or clerical labour. As a result, other employees of the private schools were eligible for the gratuity benefit but the teachers were not. They claimed that since teachers frequently work in places where gratuity benefits are not offered, it is the responsibility of the legislature to consider special legislation for them in this area. The Legislature alone has the authority to deliberate and decide on that. In cases like T.M.A. Pai Foundation versus State of Karnataka (2002)[6] and A. Sundarambal, The court stressed the necessity of creating a framework for resolving conflicts involving instructors. In order to create such a tribunal, the Educational Tribunals Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha in 2010. The fact that the bill did not rely on any actual evidence, however, was one of the main criticisms of it, which casts doubt on the practicality of the creation of the Educational Tribunals.
Also, due to the fact that teachers need to become experts in their field, it can also be categorised as a technical labour. As a result, teachers must be considered “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Act in order for them to be eligible for the act’s dispute resolution process. Therefore, in professions like teaching, where stakes are so high as they are responsible for the future of the nation, the legislature must come up with a proper dispute resolution mechanism in order to safeguard the rights and interests of teachers. The Government presented the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 to cover the term of “employee” to all types of employees, citing the Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association decision (supra) in the goal and grounds for Amendment. With retroactive effect beginning on 03-04-1997, the Amendment Act added a new Section 13A and a Clause (e) to Section 2 of the Act in order to grant instructors who have provided continuous service for at least 5 years the benefit of gratuity.
Employees of educational institutions which are not state owned or state aided are covered by EPF and ESI subject to the coverage rules prescribed therein. Subject to state amendments teachers are not covered by Payment of Bonus Act. But, Payment of Gratuity Act is now applicable to all the employees of educational institutions. Educational institutions not covered by states service rules and having registered under the State’s Shops and Commercial Establishments Act will have to follow service rules prescribed by the said Act. As such some other Acts such as Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act (does not include teachers), Maternity Benefits Act as, the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 safeguards women’s employment during pregnancy and grants them the right to a “maternity benefit,” or fully paid leave from work, to care for their unborn child. Every establishment with ten or more employees is subject to the statute. Other than this, National and Festival Holidays Act (state Act) will also have direct bearing on educational institutions. Therefore, this sector is waiting for a substantive reform in the field of Labour Laws .
[1] University Of Delhi & Anr vs Ram Nath,1964 SCR (2) 703
[2] Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, 1978 (1) LLJ 349 13
[3] Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, India Code (1993), vol. 13
[4] A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu, (1988) 4 SCC 42
[5] Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 SCC 755
[6] State of Karnataka v. T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2003) 6 SCC 790
Author Bio
