H C L LIMITED Vs. JPS MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) . In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not covered by the definition of the term "Workman". His submission is based on the statement made by the respondent. Statement of the respondent indicates following duties of the petitioner:-

(3.) . It is not disputed that the salary of the petitioner ranged between Rs. 1.800.00 to Rs. 2,0021- and ultimately Rs. 2.400.00. The learned Labour Court took the view that since no evidence had been adduced on behalf of the management to show that the work performed by the workman was in any way supervisory in nature and it has been testified by the workman that he was basically doing the basic work of a clerical nature under the supervision and control of his seniors. Simply because the workman was getting basic pay of Rs. 2,400.00 per month would not exclude him from the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) and answered the reference accordingly and accepted the statement of claims made by the petitioner.