C CHANNAIAH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under article 226 of THE Constitution of India for THE issue of a writ of certiorari to quash THE order dated 27-4-1984 passed by THE first respondent (Annexure-A) and also for a writ of mandamus directing THE first respondent to treat THE petitioner as a workman within THE meaning of Section 2(s) of THE Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'THE act') and to compute THE benefits as prayed for by him in his application 14 of 1988 shown in annexurc-a. The factual antecedents leading for filing of this writ petition briefly stated are - that THE petitioner filed an application under sub-section (2) of Section 33(c) of THE act claiming to recover a sum of Rs. 4,802/- which according to him was to be paid by THE second respondent on THE allegation that THE petitioner was working as a manager from December 1978 in second respondent-firm on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. Though he was designated and appointed as a manager, THE nature of work was clerical which included conduct of business, maintenance of accounts as well as maintenance of oTHEr ledgers and several oTHEr duties which were purely clerical in nature. The first respondent-THE presiding officer, labour court, mysore, after filing of THE application, has taken THE case on board and framed a preliminary issue to decide wheTHEr THE petitioner was a workman in THE capacity of THE manager or a clerk to get THE jurisdiction of THE tribunal to decide THE application. The learned presiding officer after recording THE evidence of THE petitioner as a.w. 1 and THE partner of THE firm as r.w. 1, came to THE conclusion that THE petitioner was working as a manager of THE firm and that his admission to that effect was found to be sufficient and THEreby answered THE preliminary issue in THE negative and dismissed THE application as not maintainable. Learned counsel for THE petitioner Sri S.Krishnaiah after taking through this court to some of THE decisions on THE point has submitted that THE nomenclature of THE designation is not a criteria to decide a person is a workman or not, but it is THE duties coupled with THE salary is THE sole criteria to decide wheTHEr a person is a workman or not as recognised under THE act. Against this submission, Shri G.S.Visweswara, learned counsel for THE second respondent has submitted that THE evidence available on record, spoken to by THE petitioner is conclusive and THEre is absolutely no error committed by THE first respondent in coining to THE conclusion that THE petitioner is not a workman. To appreciate THE point in a proper perspective we have to note THE definition of THE expression 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of THE act which reads as follows: "2(s): "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, wheTHEr THE terms of employment be express or implied, and for THE purposes of any proceeding under this act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, of whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - (i) xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx (iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, eiTHEr by THE nature of THE duties attached to THE office or by reason of THE powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." if we distinguish THE definition as given above, it leads to a conclusion that a person working in THE capacity of a manager or his duties are not in THE nature of clerical, he should be deemed to be not a workman. The salary drawn by a person is not THE sole criteria to decide this question. The petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he was working as a manager though his salary was Rs. 500/- and THE duties assigned to him was to apply for permit as THE firm was dealing in some enterprises and he uses to contact THE commissioner of excise to get THE endorsements on permits to purchase liquor from distillaries. He was also conducting THE sales and one clerk was engaged to write THE accounts. He was also maintaining THE day book and ledgers and he was in-charge of opening THE office by keeping THE key with him and after THE business, he was responsible for closing THE firm by putting THE lock and key. Admittedly THE petitioner was disengaged from his service after THE finn was dissolved due to some misunderstandings between THE partners and THE petitioner sought to get some compensation in accordance with Section 25-f of THE act. Since THE petitioner failed to prove that he was a workman as contemplated under Section 2(s) of THE Act, thus acting under article 226 of THE constitution, this court will not interfere with THE order passed by THE first respondent negativing THE contention of THE petitioner. In THE result, this writ petition fails and THE same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.