AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: This writ petition has been made by the nine petitioners being teachers of different schools under Durgapur Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited originally appointed as 'master' under the Education Department of the Plant by the pen of Additional Chief Personnel Manager. They had challenged a Memorandum of Settlement on restructuring of non-executive work organisation relating to Education Department of Durgapur Steel Plant dated 29th August, 2002 duly signed by the Management of Steel Authority of India Limited, Durgapur Steel Plant on one hand and workmen of Durgapur Steel Plant represented by the three unions i. e. Hindusthan Steel Employees' Union, Hindusthan Steel Workers' Union and Durgapur Steel Shramik Union respectively on the other hand. There is no dispute as to the representative capacity of the said three unions. The dispute is whether the teachers can be treated as 'workmen', if not, the unions representing the 'workmen' cannot sign the Memorandum of Settlement on behalf of the teaching staffs of the said Plant. In such case the said Memorandum of Settlement has to be declared non est in the eye of law. Teaching staffs cannot be bound under such agreement. Services of the teachers are regulated by the statutory Rules framed for the purpose which cannot be overridden by the Memorandum of Settlement. ( 2 ) MR. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel, appearing in support of the petitioners cited two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1988 (4) SCC 42 (Miss S. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Ors.) and 1984 (1) LLJ 259 (Mr. Karthiyayani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) to establish that the teachers are not 'workmen'. ( 3 ) IN the first cited judgment it was held by the Supreme Court by following Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa reported in 1978 (2) SCC 213 that even though an educational institution has to be treated as an 'industry', teachers in an educational institution cannot be considered as 'workmen'. The teachers employed by educational institutions for imparting primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. The teachers employed by educational institutions for imparting primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2 (s) of the Act should be treated as 'workmen' as it will render the words ?to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work? meaningless. ( 4 ) THE second judgment is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court from where I find that the physical or manual exertions are only accessory and incidental to the process of imparting knowledge which is predominantly an activity of the intellect. It cannot be held that the act of teaching is a mechanical and repetitive physical exercise rather than a process involving exercise of the intellectual and creative faculty of the individual teacher. Excessive commercialisation has affected the field of education and a new orientation in the relation between the teachers and the institutionalised education has transformed it almost into a trade. Almost the whole body of our teaching fraternity has been organised on trade union lines. These are pointers for education being treated as industry. It may perhaps be a natural corollary that those employed in education, which is an industry, should be treated as 'workmen'. But this can be only if the statutory definition permits it. ( 5 ) FROM the definition of 'workmen' under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 I find that it does not include any person attached to the service of air-force, army or navy, in the police service, managerial or administrative service or working in a supervisory capacity drawing sum exceeding the limit prescribed under the Act on the basis of the nature of the duties attached to the office and reason of the power, functions mainly of a managerial nature. Under section 2 (k) a dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen can be described as industrial dispute. The object of the Act is to provide a machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Therefore, if any such Memorandum of Settlement is arrived by or between the management and workmen the same cannot be existable within the four corners of law. But according to Mr. Bandyopadhyay, since the teachers are not the 'workmen' they cannot get any alternative forum for adjudication under Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) HE cited the decision reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 (Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. with other matter) to establish that there is no estoppel against or waiver of a constitutional right of a citizen, there is no embargo in invoking writ jurisdiction. ( 7 ) MR. Narayan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the authority drew my attention to certain factual aspects of the matter. According to him, primary service condition of such employees as 'master' will derive from the letter of appointment itself. They are holding non-executive posts. Time to time the several settlements were derived by or between the parties. From the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition I find the similar type of settlements were made in 1989 and 1991. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the Masters are enjoying the fruits of such settlements made by or between the similar parties. Number of such staffs are about 500 or more. From the calculation it appears that no more than 2% of such employees have come forward with a plea that the settlement cannot be made applicable. Even one of the petitioners has written a letter to the respondents not to proceed with the writ petition. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education was informed regarding such settlement by a letter dated 4th September, 2002. As yet there is no objection on the part of Board about fixation of salary, promotion etc. or duty hours fixed under such settlement. So far as the representation of the teachers are concerned, although Mr. Bandyopadhyay opposed but I find at least 302 signatures of such staffs are shown in the annexure being draft Memorandum of Settlement to Legislation. The working hours were made keeping parity with the notification of the Government of West Bengal School Education Department dated 3rd November, 2000. So far as the representation of the teachers are concerned, although Mr. Bandyopadhyay opposed but I find at least 302 signatures of such staffs are shown in the annexure being draft Memorandum of Settlement to Legislation. The working hours were made keeping parity with the notification of the Government of West Bengal School Education Department dated 3rd November, 2000. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, these factual aspects indicate that the intention of the petitioners are not for the benefit of the majority of the employees but to frustrate it on the basis of the various fictitious plea. The challenge has been thrown in a piecemeal manner in respect of various clauses. The staffs are getting monetary benefit and they have volunteered to enter into such agreement for the purpose of their benefit including promotional benefit. This has been done at the instance of the Education Department, Durgapur Steel Plant, to give on one hand financial benefit and on the other hand stop private tuition. ( 8 ) I find from the affidavit-in-opposition that recruitment, appointment, promotion and service condition of the executive, teaching staffs and non-teaching staffs of the educational institutions established or to be established will be governed by the appropriate Rules and the regulations of Durgapur Steel Plant under Steel Authority of India Limited. Disciplines and appeal Rules applicable to the comparable employees of the steel plant will also be valid for personnel employed in educational institutions. Wage structure of the teaching and non-teaching staffs will be revived alongwith other Plant employees as per norms. Pay structure for non-teaching staffs will however be identical for those Plants for similar job requirements. Durgapur Steel Plant by letter dated 30th July, 1981 constituted a School Advisory Committee for assisting the management for the efficient running of the schools. ( 9 ) MR. Bhattacharjee cited three judgments being AIR 1981 SC 2163 (M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen) and 2000 (3) SCC 446 (Mayurakshi Cottom Mills and Ors. v. Panchra Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Employees' Union and Ors.) on the issue of settlement and 1996 (5) SCC 740 (State of Orissa and Ors. v. Narin Prasad and Ors.) on the issue of estoppel by conduct. Ltd. v. Their Workmen) and 2000 (3) SCC 446 (Mayurakshi Cottom Mills and Ors. v. Panchra Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Employees' Union and Ors.) on the issue of settlement and 1996 (5) SCC 740 (State of Orissa and Ors. v. Narin Prasad and Ors.) on the issue of estoppel by conduct. So far the issue of settlement is concerned I find that when settlement is made and arrived at by vast majority of employees, refusal by small number does not seem to be just and fair. Similarly, by citing the second judgment he contended that whether a settlement is fair or unfair or valid cannot be examined in the absence of the factual documents in which the same was entered into. So far as the second point is concerned by citing the third judgment he contended before this Court that a person after securing a contract taking into account its terms, cannot later be allowed to assail validity of those terms of the Rules constituting the terms of the contract by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. ( 10 ) I have taken into account all aspects of the matter. There is no doubt that unless law is amended the teaching staffs cannot be construed as 'workmen'. But it has to be gone into by this Court that what is the case hereunder. Is it a case that the teaching staffs are tried to be converted to workmen or is it a case that a policy has been adopted by the whole of management and employees for the purpose of fixation of duty and right both for the teaching staffs of the Plant? If the appropriate answer, either way, is available then the same will be the guiding factor for disposal of this writ petition. It is true to say that several prior arrangements in the name of the settlement have been annexed by the respondents wherefrom it appears that teaching staffs enjoyed the benefit of similar types of settlement time to time. It is also correct to say that if the law does not permit getting benefit under earlier settlements cannot stand in that way. But my question is excepting the nomenclature 'workmen' represented by the Unions no clause available under the Memorandum of Settlement from which it will be reflected that the teaching staffs are described as workmen? My answer is 'no'. But my question is excepting the nomenclature 'workmen' represented by the Unions no clause available under the Memorandum of Settlement from which it will be reflected that the teaching staffs are described as workmen? My answer is 'no'. According to me, the word 'workmen' in respect of the document is a misnomer if applies to the teaching staffs at all. But this is the description of two parties not the teaching staffs. In common parlance there are two sides i. e. employers' side and employees' side. Admittedly, the teaching staffs are non-executive staffs. Therefore, they are in the employees' side. At all material time unions represented such class to ensure the benefit of such teaching staffs. Teaching staffs accepted the benefit on the basis of such settlement. But as and when the present settlement is not only to enure the benefit alone but also to fix the duty, some people become aggrieved for imposition of such conditions. Therefore, if the nomenclature 'workmen' in the document is declared as misnomer, the document under challenge has to be treated as a valid piece of policy decision in between the management and the union in respect of regulation of service of the non-executive posts, i. e. the teaching posts of the different schools of Durgapur Steel Plant which ultimately cause benefit of their children. It is not out of place to mention that the huge number of such staffs are signatories to the proposed memorandum. Therefore, if the settlement enuring benefit vis-a-vis fixation of duty as a matter of a policy is made out by the majority staffs it will not be thrown out like a useless piece of paper. Balance of convenience is not an one way traffic. In the way of fixation of right and duty of the teaching staffs sometimes the Rules of the respective Boards may come in the way but if such Boards are intimated the same cannot be any irregularity. There is no apparent conflict between memorandum of settlement and Rule, if any. The question arose why the unions will represent when the teaching staffs are not 'workmen'. I am sorry to say that this is a clear misunderstanding. The description in the title says representation of the unions on behalf of the 'workmen'. No where it has been said that teachers are 'workmen'. The question arose why the unions will represent when the teaching staffs are not 'workmen'. I am sorry to say that this is a clear misunderstanding. The description in the title says representation of the unions on behalf of the 'workmen'. No where it has been said that teachers are 'workmen'. As they are the part of the industry, even as per cited judgments of Mr. Bandyopadhyay, non-executive class and participants, obviously the union has right of representation to the management to make out a policy for the education of the children of the Plant. The document is outcome of the same. In the case of non-executive class by and large unions or associations are representing them for the purpose of betterment. Moreover, the representation of the unions was not opposed by the teachers and when the document was executed, handful of people came forward to this Court and raised such technical plea by way of this writ petition. But mere representation by the union on behalf of the non-executive posts in an industry, when the teachers are part of it, cannot make the valid piece of document redundant. Had this Court been convinced that the teachers are 'workmen' would have thrown the writ petition at the very beginning with a leave to approach before the appropriate tribunal or Court. Since this Court never thought that the teachers are the 'workmen' as per the existing principle till this day, applied the mind in respect of merit of the case. But upon going through the same when Court found that there is nothing irregular in making Memorandum of Settlement in an industry by management and unions representing the workmen when the teachers being non-executive class are agreeable, Court cannot allow the petitioners to frustrate the decision. It is an administrative exigency. The only requirement is to take an approval from the authority which expressly or impliedly has been taken or sought for. Therefore, I do not find any reason why a policy decision of an industry made for the purpose of better education of the children of the people connected therein will be disturbed only for the incorporation of the word 'workmen' in the nomenclature of the Memorandum of Settlement. Therefore, I do not find any reason why a policy decision of an industry made for the purpose of better education of the children of the people connected therein will be disturbed only for the incorporation of the word 'workmen' in the nomenclature of the Memorandum of Settlement. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that instead of dismissing the writ petition the same can be treated to be disposed of by declaring that the word 'workmen'; if at all described the teaching staffs in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th August, 2002, is misnomer. Save and except such declaration, the petitioners are not entitled to get any other relief whatsoever. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. However, no order is passed as to costs. Prayer for stay is made, considered and refused. Let an urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties within 3 days from the date of putting the requisites. Petition disposed of of