JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.
1. Whether the duties performed by the respondent No.2 Smt. Chanda Begam, the alleged workman performing the job of a lady social worker whose work was primarily to persuade the ladies for the purpose of family planning, is covered within the definition of the word 'workman' under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), is the short question that falls for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner, the employer, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated May 20, 1992 (Annexure-I to the petition).
2. The facts of the case are almost admitted. Respondent No.2 was employed as lady social worker in the Kanpur Branch of the Family Planning Association of India. The main job of the lady social worker was to impart information and knowledge of family planning methods, to motivate eligible couples for acceptance and practice of family planning, to promote and distribute conventional contraceptives and refer cases of terminal methods to Government Hospitals, to hold meetings of eligible couples to impart family planning educational and motivational inputs, and to undertake door to door approach for motivating eligible couples for] family planning acceptance and persuade them to adopt family planning. Respondent No. 2 was initially engaged as lady social worker since April 20, 1983. Her performance having been found unsatisfactory, her services were terminated with effect from March 1, 1985. But later on she accepted her mistake and promised to improve with the assurance not to claim continuity of service. Hence she was appointed afresh with effect from March 15, 1985 (vide An-; nexure-2 to the petition). As she did not improve her work, consequently her services were terminated with effect from October 5, 1985 by notice dated September 4, 1985. She raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court III, Kanpur. The dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 149 of 1987, and the question was whether the services of Smt. Chandra Begam, respondent No. 2, the lady social worker,: were illegally terminated, and if it was so, what relief she was entitled? Evidence was led by both the parties, and one of the main questions was whether respondent No. 2 was the workman within the definition of Section 2(z) of the Act. By the impugned award dated May 20, 1992 (Annexure-I), it was held that her services were illegally terminated and she was entitled to be reinstated with back wages from the date of termination of her service. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Shri J.N. Tewari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the duties of respondent No. 2, the alleged lady social worker, was to do canvassing and promote the cause of family planning, including suggestions, ways and means to augment tubectomy and to convince the eligible couples and to make publicity. These duties were not covered within the Definition of 'workman' under Section 2(z) of the Act, as it did not involve skill or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. Consequently, the reference under Section 4(k) of the Act was without jurisdiction: Reliance was placed on T.P. Srivastava v. National Tobacco Company of India Ltd. (1992-I-LLJ-86), Miss. A. Sunderambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (1989-1- LLJ-61).
4. Shri Gaurav Kumar Srivastavu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, urged that the duties performed by respondent No. 2 indicate that she was covered with the definition of 'workman', and that the Labour Court has correctly held under the Award that respondent No. 2 was covered with the definition of 'workman', and the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were distinguishable.
5. As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition itself may be decided on merits. Consequently, I proceed to decide the petition on merits.
6. As regards the question as to whether the duties performed by respondent No. 2 as lady social worker employed with a view to impart information and knowledge of family planning and to motivate the eligible couples for acceptance and practice of family planning were covered with the definition of 'workman' as given under Section 2(z) of the Act, what is to be emphasized is that the definition of 'workman' restrictive in nature, and It is better to extract the same as under:
"Workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
7. A bare reading of the aforesaid definition would indicate that it was restrictive in nature and explanatory. It indicates that illustration has been given as to what would be covered within ; the definition of the expression 'workman' and that the legislature has used the expression 'includes' the definition is extensive and exhaustive in nature and very often in the definition both the expressions 'mean' and 'includes' are; employed, and there it becomes slightly difficult to ascertain the meaning to be conveyed to the definition clause. It has to be noticed that certain expressions are defined in the interpretation clause merely ex-abundanticautela, for the sake of precaution, so that the actual meaning to be conveyed, may not escape the notice of those called upon to interpret it.
8. In other words, the legislature takes precaution by providing the definition of a particular word in the definition clause of the Section, so that the same meaning may be applied wherever the expression is used. Where the legislature has defined the meaning of a particular word. with authoritative precision, the same accuracy of the meaning has to be given effect to by the Court. It is the intentional legislative construction and the same is of considerable significance, and it has been provided by the legislature; itself. To put it differently, where it has intended to exhaust the signification of the word sought to be interpreted, the word 'mean' is used. Whenever the legislature uses the word 'means' this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the legislative wants to exhaust the signification of the terms defined and it is substantively the hard and fast definition and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than what has been indicated in the definition clause by the legislature, (see Central Inland Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brijnath Ganguty (1986- II-LLJ-171), Taj Mahal Hotels v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1978 (70) ITR 366; Bristol Transport and Carnage Co. v. The Mayor of City Corporation (1890) 59 UGB 441.
9. Keeping the aforesaid principles of interpretation in mind which has been made explicit to connote that the workman means any person employed in an industry being skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical, it has to be ascertained as to whether the nature of duties to be performed by respondent No. 2 was of skilled, unskilled or manual, supervisory, technical or clerical nature. It was stated in para 3 of the writ petition that the nature of duties to be performed by respondent No. 2 was to impart information and knowledge of the family planning, to motivate the eligible couples to accept the family planning. Substantially the duties to be performed by respondent No. 2 was to do canvassing and promote the future prospects of the family planning schemes. The work to be done by respondent No. 2 must be one of the planning schemes. The work to be done by respondent No. 2 must be of one of the types of the work referred to in Section 2(z) of the Act, to wit, manual, skilled or clerical in nature. This point was urged before the Labour Court, but the Labour Court held that point in negative. Para 3 of the writ petition indicating the nature of duties to be performed by respondent No. 2 to impart information and knowledge of the family planning and to motivate the eligible couples for acceptance of the family planning was not denied. It means that the duty to be performed by respondent No. 2 was to do canvassing and promoting the prospects of the family planning and to make its publicity amongst the eligible couples. The nature of duties has been indicated in the statement of Shri Maqbool Ahrnad Khan, Secretary of the Family Planning Association of India, Kanpur Branch (Armexure-8), which indicates that the nature of the work performed by respondent No. 2 was to propagate family planning and to persuade the eligible couples for the said scheme, and that the duties performed by her was not of manual, technical, supervisory or clerical in nature (vide page 53 of the paper book.) No cross- examination was made on the said aspect. It was stated in para 13 of the writ petition that she was not performing any technical, manual, clerical, skilled or unskilled manual work in propagating and canvassing for the family planning scheme. This para was replied in para 12 of the counter-affidavit and it was just stated that the averments made in para 13 of the writ petition were denied as misconceived. The job of respondent No. 2 was operational in nature and advisory in nature. There was no positive denial of the concrete facts as to how respondent: No. 2 was covered with the definition of 'workman'. Nothing was stated about the nature of duties to be performed by her as averred in para 13 of the writ petition.
10. The Labour Court has relied upon Dinesh Chandra Misra v. Asst. Labour Commissioner and Anr. 1985 (50) FLR 136. That was a case of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. But in that case facts were entirely different. In that case the point that was to be decided was as to whether the General Inspector belonging to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was 'workman' or not. His duties were to prepare cover notes policies and premium receipts and to maintain different statements and surveys and any other business which may be assigned to him. This indicates that his duties were more of clerical nature. Consequently that was covered within the definition of 'workman'. The same analogy cannot be imported in the present case. Keeping in view the definition of 'workman', which was restrictive in nature, and considering the nature of duties performed by respondent No. 2, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 was not covered with the definition of workman, hence the reference made by the State Government under Section 4(k) of the Act was without jurisdiction and the Labour Court was not justified in adjudicating upon the reference made by the State Government.
11. T.P. Srivastava v. MA. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was applicable in al I fours to the facts of the present case. In that case the question was whether the salesman was covered with the definition of 'workman' as given under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was found that the main function of the second salesman was to promote sales of the product of the Company and to do canvassing, to persuade the purchasers for the goods manufactured by the Company, and their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the salesman cannot be said to be 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Central Act, as his duties were not of manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical in nature.
12. A. Sunderambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (supra), was a case where the question was as to whether the teachers employed in a school was covered with the definition of 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Central Act, and it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that imparting education was the main function of teachers and the same cannot be considered as skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, and the work of teacher was held not to be covered within the definition of 'workman' . In the present case also the duty of respondent No. 2 is to impart information about the family planning and to persuade the eligible couples to adopt the family planning. Consequently respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be covered within the definition of 'workman' as given under Section 2(z) of the Act.
13. In view of the premises aforesaid and applying the aristotelian and beconian reasonings, I have no manner of doubt that there are errors apparent on the face of record in the impugned award, and consequently the same cannot be sustained.
14. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated May 20, 1992 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.