MANAGEMENT OF LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST Vs. K SRIRANGACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these matters are listed in preliminary hearing, by consent of both the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE respondent joined the services of the petitioner on 17. 5. 1988 as a workman. From 31. 3. 1990 he was treated as a permanent employee. On 9. 4. 1990 he was promoted from the post of Printer to the post of Supervisor. His services were terminated on 7. 11. 1996. He was working as Assistant Production Manager. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 (4a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, before the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. He contended that the domestic enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper. Even on merits he contended that the misconduct is not proved. The petitioner-management filed the statement of objections contending that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Secondly it was contended that the respondent is not a Workman and therefore the application is not maintainable. On merits also, they denied all the allegations made by the respondent. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application for interim relief. The said application was opposed on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that until and unless the question of validity of domestic enquiry is considered by the Court, the said application cannot be taken up for consideration. Secondly, it was contended that as the respondent is not a workman no relief could be granted by the Court. In view of the objections taken, the Court recorded a finding regarding the validity of domestic enquiry as preliminary issue. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and set aside the domestic enquiry. It is thereafter the application for grant of interim relief was taken up for consideration. The petitioner reiterated the objections, viz. , the respondent is not a workman and unless the said jurisdictional fact is decided by the Labour Court, the Labour Court cannot grant the interim relief. It was further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court has to be decided as a preliminary point. The Labour Court not considering the aforesaid objections held that though the question whether the respondent is a workman is a jurisdictional point, the said issue could be decided only after recording the evidence. But at this stage from the material on record and from the admitted facts, prima facie, it is satisfied that the respondent is a workman and therefore has proceeded to grant the interim relief to the workman at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month from 22. 12. 1999 till final adjudication by its order dated 16. 8. 2003 as per Annexure-C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Ms. Sribhoomi assailing the impugned order submitted that the question whether the respondent is a workman or not is a jurisdictional point, unless that jurisdictional point is decided one way or the other, the Labour Court will not get jurisdiction to consider the application for interim relief and grant interim relief. In support of her contention, she relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rangaswamy and Co. V/s. D. V. Jagadish reported in LLN 1990 (2) Page 745 and submitted that as the Labour Court has not recorded the evidence on the said issue and recorded a finding, the impugned order passed is liable to be quashed on that short ground. She also submitted, admittedly, the respondent was working as an Assistant Production Manager and the very designation shows that he is not a workman and therefore, the Labour Court has committed an error in coming to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent is a workman U/s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.