MAHAJAN BOREWELL COMPANY BANGALORE Vs. RAJARAM BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The purpose and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter called 'the Act') has successfully been frustrated by the appellant by having resort to technicalities of law and procedural wrangles. The respondent has been subjected to uncalled for litigation for over a period of 17 years. All efforts have been made by the appellant-employers to force starvation upon the respondent and thereby deprive him of the benefits of the orders or award passed in his favour, though after protracted litigation. The controversy between the parties was not such which could have been permitted to prolong for a period of about two decades.

(2.) The only question sought to be adjudicated between the parties is as to whether the respondent, who was admittedly employed by the appellants as Geologist, was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Taking advantage of the loose definition of the workman it has been vehemently urged by the appellants that as the respondent was allegedly exercising supervisory powers, he could not be deemed to be a workman under the Act.

(3.) The facts necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties are that the respondent was appointed by the appellant as an Assistant Geologist on 2-9-1974 and was promoted to the post of Geologist thereafter. During the year 1978-79 he was held entitled to Sunday allowance, bonus and ex gratia amount as a measure of incentive. His services were terminated on 9-2-1980 on allegedly false allegations. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court vide Government Order No. SWL 300 ILD 81, dated 22-06-1981. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the appellant mainly on the ground that as he was allegedly not a workman, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference or pass the award. It was submitted that the services of the respondent were terminated as he allegedly refused to attend the duties which were assigned to him and he showed disrespect to the General Manager. He was stated' to have been paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. Vide its award dated 22-12-1981, the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore-9 allowed the reference holding that the appellant-management was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent workman. He was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and backwages. The said order was recalled and the said Labour Court vide its subsequent award dated 29-5-1985 directed that instead of reinstatement and backwages the workman be paid a compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with costs of Rs. 100/-. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, both the workman and the management filed Writ Petition Nos. 16776 of 1986 and 12131 of 1987 which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in these appeals. The writ petition filed by the management was dismissed and the writ petition of the workman was allowed in part by modifying the award of the Labour Court directing that instead of Rs. 45,000/- he be paid a compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. The management was given the concession of making the payment of the compensation amount in two instalments, the first to be paid on or before 9-7-1995 and the belence on or before 9-10-1995. It was further directed that in case of default in the payment of amount within the stipulated time, the workman would be entitled to realize the balance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order.