Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a teacher employed in a school falls within the definition of the expression 'workman' as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) The appellant, Miss A. Sundarambal, was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary at Caranzalem, Goa. Her services were terminated by the Management by a letter dated 25th April, 1975. After she failed in her several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled, she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the Act. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu by his letter dated 2nd May, 1982. On receipt of the report the Government considered the question whether it could refer the matter for adjudication under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act but on reaching the conclusion that the appellant was not a 'workman' as defined in the Act which alone would have converted a dispute into an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k) of the Act, it declined to make a reference. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to make a reference under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act to a Labour Court to determine the validity of the termination of her services. The said writ petition was registered as Special Leave Application No. 59 of 1983. That petition was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not a workman by its judgment dated 5th Sept. 1983. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
(3.) Two questions arise for consideration in this case; (1) whether the school, in which the appellant was working, was an industry, and (2), whether the appellant was a 'workman' employed in that industry. It is, however, not disputed that if the appellant was not a 'workman' no reference under S. 10(l)(c) of the Act could be sought.;