LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES Vs. SUDHIN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) 3256/2013

(2.) Case of the petitioner Airlines as averred in the petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were employed with the petitioner as Supervisors and were performing supervisory and managerial duties. Their services could be terminated by the petitioner in exercise of powers vested in it under Clause 8.2.4 of the Rules of Employment, on payment of requisite salary in lieu of notice. Having been employed and worked as Supervisors, the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not fall under the definition of 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act').

(3.) The petitioner, therefore, raised a preliminary objection against the statement of claim filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal that the respondents were employed as Supervisors and were exclusively performing supervisory duties and, as such, they were not 'workman' with the meaning of Section 2(s) of ID Act, and, therefore, the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference or to grant them any relief.