Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a writ petition challenging notifications issued by the State of Haryana under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The appellants, an association of unrecognised schools, contended that teachers could not be classified as employees under the Act, while the State sought to regulate minimum wages for private school staff to prevent exploitation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the writ petition, holding that the State's power under Section 27 is unfettered and that the notification was social welfare legislation. The Government of Haryana, exercising power under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, added Item No. 40 in Part I of the Schedule, describing employment in private coaching classes, schools including nursery schools and technical institutions. By notification dated 30 April 1983, the State Government fixed minimum wage rates under Section 5(2) for different categories of employees serving in such schools. The appellants challenged these notifications, arguing that teachers of educational institutions are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and not employees under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, relying on Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd., which cautioned against interfering with minimum wage notifications except on substantial grounds. The core question was whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employees under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, enabling the Government to fix their minimum wages, with a subsidiary issue of whether the State could add such employment under Section 27. The appellants argued that teachers do not perform skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work; teaching is a mission or noble vocation, and any clerical work is incidental. The State argued that Section 27 gives broad power to add employments, and because managements exploit teachers, fixing minimum wages is justified. The Supreme Court examined the object of the Minimum Wages Act, which is to prevent exploitation of workers by fixing minimum wages. It noted that Section 2(i) covers any person employed for hire or reward to do skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work in a scheduled employment, and a combined reading of Sections 27, 5(2) and 2(i) shows that the State can add only employments where persons are employed to do such work. The Court relied on Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union for the Act's object but held beneficial interpretation must be limited to intended employments. It applied Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, where teachers were held not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act because imparting education is not skilled, unskilled manual or clerical work and clerical duties are incidental. Therefore, teachers are not employees under Section 2(i). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the notifications insofar as they related to teachers of educational institutions, and held that the State Government is not entitled to fix minimum wages for teachers under the Minimum Wages Act, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Minimum Wages - Definition of Employee - Section 2(i) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Teachers not employees as they do not perform skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work - The court examined whether teachers of educational institutions fall within Section 2(i). It held that the definition covers only persons employed for hire or reward to do any skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work. Since imparting education is neither skilled/unskilled manual work nor clerical work but a noble vocation with incidental clerical duties, teachers are excluded. Held teachers are not employees under the Act (Paras not mentioned). B) Minimum Wages - State Power to Add Employment - Sections 27 and 5(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - State cannot add employment where persons do not perform specified work - The State had added employment in private coaching classes, schools including nursery schools and technical institutions and fixed minimum wages. The court reasoned that a combined reading of Sections 27, 5(2) and 2(i) limits State power to employments where persons are hired to do skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work. Because teachers do not do such work, the notification adding their employment was ultra vires the Act. Held State lacked competence to fix minimum wages for teachers (Paras not mentioned). C) Statutory Interpretation - Beneficial Legislation - Scope limited to intended employments - The court acknowledged that beneficial interpretation should advance object of Minimum Wages Act to prevent exploitation of workers, but it cannot extend to employments outside the Act. The object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of workers, but only those engaged in specified categories of work are intended to be covered. Held teachers not within intended coverage (Paras not mentioned). D) Labour Law - Workman Definition - Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Precedent applied to Minimum Wages Act - The court relied on Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, where teachers were held not workmen under Industrial Disputes Act because teaching is not skilled or unskilled manual work or clerical work. Applying that dictum to Section 2(i), the court held teachers similarly outside employee definition. Held Sundarambal principle governs (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employees under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to enable the Government to fix their minimum wages.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned notifications quashed insofar as they relate to teachers of educational institutions; teachers cannot be brought under Minimum Wages Act; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Definition of employee under Section 2(i) of Minimum Wages Act
- 1948 covers only persons employed for skilled
- unskilled
- manual or clerical work
- teachers of educational institutions do not perform such work and are not employees
- State Government cannot add an employment to the Schedule under Section 27 unless persons therein are employed for hire or reward to do skilled
- beneficial interpretation of social welfare legislation cannot extend to employments not intended to be covered
- notifications fixing minimum wages for teachers are beyond State's competence and are quashed.
