Judgment :- NAINAR SUNDARAM J. 1. The petitioner raised an Industrial dispute over her non-employment by the first respondent. The first respondent would contend inter alia that the petitioner is not a workman at all she having bad been only a teacher with the first respondent. The second respondent who adjudicated the industrial dispute sustained an objection put forth by the first respondent that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act would not apply to it. The second respondent did not go into the other aspects of the Industrial dispute. The objection of the first respondent sustained by the second respondent with reference to the applicability of the Act to the first respondent could not survive in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in ChristianMedical College Hospital Employees Union and another v. ChristianMedical College Vellore, Association and others 1 . But this does not bring a resolution to the controversy as a whole, because Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the first respondent would advance a point that the petitioner being a teacher would not be a workman at all within the meaning of the Act so as to maintain a reference and obtain an adjudication over the industrial dispute raised by her regarding her non-employment by the first respondent. In this connection the learned counsel for the first respondent places reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others 2 . In that pronouncement there is a comprehensive discussion with reference to the nature of the employment of teachers in a school and the categoric opinion expressed is that such employment would not bring the teachers within the definition of ‘workman* found in the Act, Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to get out of the mischief of the above pronouncement by saying that his client was employed only in a kindergarten school and this would not come within the purview of the discu ssion of the Supreme Court in the above pronouncement and she would come within the definition of a ‘workman’ under the Act. We are not persudaded to accept this submission for the simple reason that no details of the nature of any work other than a teacher were set forth in the claim of the petitioners, On the other band, throughout the earlier stages, the advancement of the case of the petitioner was that she was employed as a teacher. Her, case squarely comes within the purview of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above. As such, though we discountenance the reasoning of the second respondent on the question of the applicability of the Act to the first respondent, we sustain the objection of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner would not fall within the definition of a ‘workman under the Act and hence there is no scope for adjudication of the dispute raised by her by the second respondent. This obliges us to dismiss the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismi ssed. There will be no order as to costs. It is certainly open to the petitioner to resort to other remedies that may be available to herin law.