Green Wood School, Dehradun vs State of U.P. and others

Kumar Roy and S. K. Jain, JJ.—The Petitioner has come up with the following prayers :

(i) to declare Notification No. 4190/XXXVl-3 : 1 (M.W.) 83, dated December 1. 1984, published in U. P. Gazette. Extra, dated 1.12.1984 as contained in Annexure-1 as null and void and quash it and command the respondents not to enforce It.

(ii) to quash the notice dated 18.6.1987 issued in Case No. M.W.A. 77 of 1986 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Dehradun, respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-2.

The moot ground taken by the petitioner is that as the petitioner is a private institution to which no aid is granted either by the State Government or any local body and the normal working hours of Its teachers and other employees on a working day is less than five hours, whereas in an Industry it is eight hours per day, and the salary paid to them has no co-relation with the physical labour and thus they cannot be treated as employee of the petitioner or the petitioner as an employer as contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act under which the impugned notification and notice have been issued and thus they are without jurisdiction and void.

Mr. R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after confining his argument to only teachers of the petitioner-school submitted with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association Vs. State of Haryana, . that when the State of Haryana issued a similar notification in relation to teachers employed in the schools of Haryana, the same was struck down holding that teachers of educational institutions'' could not be held to be an employee u/s 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act.

Smt. Sarita Singh, learned standing counsel contends that in view of the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court only the different categories of teachers mentioned under heading (B) of the notification will not come within the purview of the Act but the categories of workers of the school under heading (A) will definitely come.

Unfortunately the petitioner has not brought on the record the list of the alleged employees described in the notice from which it could be gathered in clear terns as to who are such teachers of the school.

Be that as it may following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case, we quash (B) part of the notification and leave the earlier part intact. The net result is that the Impugned notice in relation to teachers of the school only stands quashed.

This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above only, but without cost.

The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Smt. Sarita Singh, learned standing counsel within two weeks, for its intimation to and follow up action by the authority concerned.