JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated December 14, 2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2002 by which the award dated July 24, 2001 rendered by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Disputes Case No. 21/1998 rejecting the reference made at the instance of the appellant, is confirmed. 2. The record of the case indicates that by order dated August 11, 1998 the appellant was appointed as part time teacher by Secretary, Northern Women Welfare Organisation on the consolidated salary of Rs. 450/- per month subject to the conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions stipulated was that he was required to do the teaching job for four hours a day and that he was required to take two periods daily, duration of each was of two hours. It was also stipulated in the appointment order that he was entitled to leave the job by giving one month's notice and the Organisation was entitled to relieve him from services by making payment of salary for one month. The services of the appellant were terminated w.e.f. October 10, 1996. His case was that mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) were not followed, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bikaner. The said conciliation proceedings failed and thereafter the appropriate Government vide notification dated February 9, 1998 (which was subsequently amended on May 29, 2001) referred the following question to the Labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication : "Whether the termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1996 by the Chairman/Secretary, Northern Railway Women Welfare Organization, Bikaner was valid and if not then what relief he was entitled to?" 3. In due course the appellant submitted statement of claim to which the respondent filed written statement. In support of his claim the appellant filed an affidavit. He was also cross examined on behalf of the respondent. No evidence was, adduced on behalf of the respondent. On appreciation of evidence led before it, the Labour Court, Bikaner held that the appellant was a teacher and, therefore, not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. He was also cross examined on behalf of the respondent. No evidence was, adduced on behalf of the respondent. On appreciation of evidence led before it, the Labour Court, Bikaner held that the appellant was a teacher and, therefore, not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court also held that the Northern Railway Women Welfare Organisation was not an industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. In view of the above mentioned conclusions the reference was dismissed vide award dated July 24, 2001. 4. Feeling aggrieved the appellant invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2002 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by judgment dated December 14, . 2004 which has given rise to the instant appeal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved Civil Misc. Application which was given inward No. 12364 dated July 14, 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed the Court that the (1) Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi (2) The General Manager, North Western Railway, Regional General Manager, Jaipur and (3) Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) North Western i Railway, DRM Office, Bikaner be impleaded as respondents in the appeal. In the application it was averred that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal were crested under the orders of Ministry of Railway and, therefore, the appellant was employee of those who were sought to be impleaded as the respondents. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the application by order dated September 9, 2005 and that is how (1) Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi (2) The General Manager, North Western Railway, Regional General Manager, Jaipur and (3) Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), North Western Railway, DRM Office, Bikaner are now impleaded as respondents. 6. This Court has heard Mr. A.K..Singh learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manoj Bhandari learned counsel for the respondents at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the original petition. 7. It may be mentioned that the appellant had raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bikaner against the respondent Nos. A.K..Singh learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manoj Bhandari learned counsel for the respondents at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the original petition. 7. It may be mentioned that the appellant had raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bikaner against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. (1) Chairman/Secretary Northern Railway Women Welfare Organization, Bikaner and (2) The Secretary, Northern Railway Women Welfare Organization. It was never the claim of the appellant before the Conciliation Officer that he was an employee of any of the newly impleaded parties nor it was his case that his services were terminated by any of the newly added parties. On failure of conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication whether the termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1996 by the Chairman/Secretary, Northern Railway Women Welfare Organization, Bikaner was valid. No dispute was ever s referred to the labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication as to whether the appellant was in service of newly added parties and that termination of his service by any of newly added parties was valid or not. Even before the learned Single Judge it was never the case of the appellant that he was workman of either (1) Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi (2) The General Manager, North Western Railway, Regional General Manager, Jaipur and (3) Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), North Western Railway, DRM Office, Bikaner and the matter had proceeded on the footing that he was appointed as teacher by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the considered opinion of this Court the appellant could not have s been permitted to implead the new respondents at the appellate stage. By permitting the appellants to implead the three respondents at the appellate, not only the award is rendered nugatory the dispute referred the Labour Court is also rendered nugatory. Under the circumstances, impleadment of the newly added respondents will have to be ignored while considering the.. question raised by the appellant in the instant appeal, more particularly in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Begal Circle) & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 531 . 8. question raised by the appellant in the instant appeal, more particularly in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Begal Circle) & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 531 . 8. The contention of the petitioner that he was a skilled worker and, therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not a workman should be set aside has no substance. The terms of appointment order have been extracted by this Court earlier which make very clear that the appellant was appointed as teacher to impart tailoring knowledge to the family members of the employees of the railway. In Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, and reported in AIR 1988 SC 1700 following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. "The Court held that the employee, Mukherjee, involved in that case was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act because he was not mainly employed to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward, which were the only two classes of employees who qualified for being treated is 'workman' in the Act, as it stood then. As a result of the above discussion, in order to give protection regarding security of employment and other benefits to sales representatives, Parliament passed a separate law entitled to Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. It is no doubt true that after the events leading to the above decision took place Section 2(s) of the Act was amended by including persons doing technical work as well as supervisory work. The question for consideration is whether even after the inclusion of the above two classes of employees in the definition of the expression 'workman' in the Act a teacher in a school can be called a workman. We are of the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate -or post graduate education cannot be called as 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teacher cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education which is the main function of teacher 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. A teacher educates children, he moulds their character, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical work, if any they may do, only incidental to their principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court for taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as 'workman' as defined under the Act. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except these falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in Section 2(s) of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of this argument will render the works to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work suggestions. A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible in the absence of these words. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 678 (Supra) precludes us from taking such a view. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant was not a `workman' though the school was an industry in view of the definition of 'workman' as it now stands." 9. Again in State of Orissa v. Adwait Dharan Mohanty, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470 the view taken is that the contention that every artisan is a workman if he produces an article with dexterity or service with dexterity by manual or technical labour cannot be accepted. 10. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decisions to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds that the concurrent finding of fact that the appellant was a teacher and, therefore, not a workman cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 11. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decisions to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds that the concurrent finding of fact that the appellant was a teacher and, therefore, not a workman cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 11. As this Court fully confers with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not a workman it is not necessary for the Court to consider the question whether the Northern Railway Women Welfare Organisation is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. On reappreciation of evidence adduced before the Labour Court, this Court finds that correct findings of facts have been arrived at by the Labour Court to which well settled principles of law have been applied. The learned counsel for the appellant cannot pursuade this Court to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Single Judge on appreciation of evidence. The appeal, therefore, which lacks merits deserves to be dismissed.For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******