Teachers play an important role in the development of society. Its purpose is to nourish young children intellectually and morally to become good Samaritans in the future. Therefore, it is a very noble profession and the teachers cannot be called workmen under the Industrial dispute act. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2011], it was held that teachers are not workers and cannot raise dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act.
But the position of a trainer is not clear to that context. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act provides definition for a workman. It says that a worker is deemed as a person who works in any industry to perform any “manual, unskilled, qualified, technical, operational, administrative or supervisory work” for wages or remuneration.
It is no where mentioned that a trainer also qualifies a teacher and cannot raise disputes under the Industrial dispute act. However, the plain and dictionary meaning of a trainer is a person who teaches skills to people or animals and prepares them for a job, activity, or sport.
The literal rule of Interpretation says that where there is no clear meaning to a word then the literal or dicionary meaning of that word is to be taken into account. Thus, taking into account the meaning of a trainer, a trainer is regarded as a teacher. In such a situation, the complaint before the labour commissioner would not be maintainable and for proper remedy you have to file you complaint before a civil court of competent jurisdiction or the High Court of the concerned state.
Reference: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2011]