THE PRESIDENT, VASAVADATTA CEMENTS Vs. S. DAMODAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the respondent is that he was appointed as an Assistant Manager under the petitioner -Company on 03.02.1997. He was entrusted with the work of a Senior Clerk. He was not assigned any managerial or supervisory work. The main function that he performed was of a workman. He neither had any authority nor power to sanction leave or to cancel leave, issue memo to the workmen or any such acts of like nature. He was terminated from service of the petitioner by the order dated 16.02.2002 with effect from 31.10.2002. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act') seeking to set aside the order of termination. By the impugned award, the claim petition was partly allowed. The respondent therein was directed to reinstate him into service within three months and granted 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the management has filed this petition.

(2.) SRI N.B. Diwanji, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent is not a workman. That he is an Assistant Manager. That he has performed managerial and supervisory duties. The appointment order also speaks of his designation. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned award.

(3.) ON hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The Labour Court has exhaustively considered the material on record. It has taken into consideration the job profile of the respondent, the appointment orders, the work being conducted and as well as the evidence lead in by both the parties. On considering the same, an exhaustive order has been passed by holding that the respondent is a workman and that his termination is illegal. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Labour Court.