The school caters to over 2,500 students and operates about 11 buses for transporting students and staff, claiming the service is provided as a facilitative measure after obtaining necessary permissions from police and transport authorities and in line with the state’s ‘Policy on Transport of School Children, 2016′.Rejecting the plea, the bench of Justice S K Panigrahi on Jan 22 observed that the decisive factor was not the institution’s primary function but the nature of the transport activity itself. “In the petitioner’s case, this court has already found that a fare is levied on students,” the bench noted, adding, “Once a charge is imposed, the activity cannot be regarded as a purely incidental charitable act; as it becomes a service rendered for consideration.” Justice Panigrahi said the fact that transport was ancillary to education did not grant immunity from statutory obligations. “The incidental nature of the transport service to the school’s primary purpose does not, in law, exempt it from the Act if the service meets the statutory definition,” he said.Justice Panigrahi further clarified that charging students for bus services amounted to carriage for hire or reward. “The collection of transportation charges from students, irrespective of the quantum or profitability, constitutes carriage for hire or reward in the legal sense,” he ruled.Describing the Act as a welfare legislation, Justice Panigrahi said it warranted a broad and purposive interpretation to protect workers engaged in such services. Consequently, the school could not seek exemption on the ground of its non-commercial or educational character.
