MAHESHWAR SINGH Vs. INDOMAG STEEL TECHNOLOGY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Ld. Labour Court in ID No. 172/99 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent management.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a draftsman on 26.8.1996 with the respondent and was regularized on 20.2.1997. It is alleged by the petitioner that his services were terminated verbally without any order in writing and hence the petitioner raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 172/99 whereby vide an award dated 9.5.2006, the labour court held that the petitioner is not a workman u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence not entitled to any relief. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is very well covered within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he was discharging the duties of a skilled person. Counsel further submitted that the category of the petitioner does not fall in the category of exclusion clauses envisaged under (i) to (iv) of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Counsel further submitted that under Clause (iv) of Section 2 (s)of the I.D. Act, a person who is employed and is discharging duties of a managerial nature would not be covered within the definition of the workman u/s 2 (s) but in the facts of the present case the petitioner was not discharging any such duties of managerial nature or of supervisory nature as proved by the petitioner on record. In support of his arguments, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Arkal Govind Raj Rao Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., 1985 3 SCC 371.