68.
The answer is: C
Explanation
The correct option is C: University of Delhi v. Ramnath.
This is because in this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the University of Delhi's argument and held that a teacher does not fall under the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court observed that teaching is not a menial or manual job, but a profession that requires intellectual and academic skills. The Court also noted that the nature and functions of a teacher are different from those of other employees, and that a teacher has a special status and responsibility in society. Therefore, the Court ruled that a teacher is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Option A is incorrect because in Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman And Diu & other, the Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of whether a teacher is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather, the Court dealt with the issue of whether an artist who performs on All India Radio is a workman under the Act. The Court held that such an artist is not a workman, as he or she does not have any regular or continuous relationship of employer and employee with All India Radio.
Option B is incorrect because in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association v. Administration Officer And Ors, the Supreme Court did not decide whether a teacher is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration, as it found that the High Court had not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also observed that the question of whether a teacher is a workman under the Act is not free from doubt and difficulty, and that it depends on various factors such as the nature of duties, functions, and responsibilities of a teacher.
Option D is incorrect because in Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v. Management of The Gymkhana Club, the Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of whether a teacher is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather, the Court dealt with the issue of whether an employee of a club or an association is a workman under the Act. The Court held that such an employee is a workman, as he or she performs manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work for hire or reward in an industry as defined by Section 2(j) of the Act.