K GEORGE CHACKO Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 17.11.2000 and 17.7.2001 passed by the Secretary (Labour) declining to refer the alleged dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Senior Manager (P&A) with M/s Vama Industries and drawing a salary of Rs. 19,740/- p.m.. He sought to raise a dispute about the termination of his service by the employer. The defence taken by the employer was that the petitioner was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 17.11.2000 refusing to refer the dispute allegedly raised by the petitioner on following grounds: "Shri K. George Chacko was admittedly working with a management on the post of Senior Manger (P&A) and his last salary drawn was 19740/- p.m.. According to the copies of documents verified was submit- ted by the management, Sh. Chacko was issuing appointment letters, sanctioning leave to the staff acting as passing authority in respect of medical bills of the staff and automobile repair and expenses authorised signatory in r/o P.F.. documents and issuing instruction to the staff of the need of discipline and punctuality and order regarding delivery of stationary and printing items in the capacity of Sr. Manager (P&A). He was performing duties of managerial and administrative nature and having administrative and financial powers Sh. Chacko is, therefore, not a workman as defined in the section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As required under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned."

(3.) The petitioner filed a review petition against the order of the appropriate Government and the review petition was also dismissed by the Secretary (Labour) on 17.7.2001 observing as under: "Whereas the matter of dispute between the management of M/s Varna Industries, through its Managing Partner, 523-524, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 and Shri K.George Chacko, B-453, DDA Flats, Ghazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi-110096 was declined to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts for adjudication vide order of even number dated 17.11.2000 on the ground that Shri K.George Chacko was admittedly working with a management on the post of Senior Manager (P&A) and his last salary drawn was Rs. 19740/- p.m. He was performing duties of managerial and administrative nature and having administrative and financial powers, Sh. Chacko is, therefore, not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas, the workman has filed review application dated 29.12.2000 to review the Order dated 17.11.2000. The contention of the petitioner is that although his designation was Manger (Personnel & Administration), yet the duties performed by him were of the clerical nature and not of a managerial nature. Therefore, both the parties were called for hearing. The management on the other hand, contented that the petitioner was functioning in the grade of Senior Manger and was drawing salary of Rs. 19740/- per month with other perks, such as the facilities of official vehicle etc. and was performing the managerial / supervisory duties and as such, could not be termed as 'workman' within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The management in support of its contention has filed photocopies of many documents indicating exercise of supervisory/managerial authority by the petitioner. The petitioner, however has rebutted it by stating that whatever authority he exercised was subject to audit check by his superiors and his job was pre-dominantly clerical. It appears that the petitioner has at times performed jobs of clerical nature i.e. preparation of salary of the employees with the help of clerical; cadre which fact has not been refuted by the representative of the management. However, this does not wash away the supervisory/managerial role of the petitioner in support of which enough documents have been provided by the management, which are on record and include the copy of application of the petitioner in which he himself has mentioned that previously he had worked as Personnel-cum-Administrative Officer with M/s Castell Industries from 1975 to 1982, with M/s Old Village Industries Limited as Senior-Personnel Assistant from 1982 to 1984 and with M/s. Ravi Industries as Personnel-cum-Administrative Manager from 1984 to September 1988. Obviously, no prudent person would apply for a clerical job, who had already been functioning as Personnel-cum- Administrative Manager in a company. There is another document issued under the signatures of the petitioner in the form of a circular, directing the employees to observe punctuality dated 26.5.1989. There is yet another circular issued in June 1989 by the petitioner prescribing procedure for routine printing requirements of certain forms by the factory. There are some other documents also which indicate exercise of financial powers by the petitioner, though to a very limited scale. The fact that allsuch exercise of supervisory/managerial powers was subject to the audit by the superior authorities, as claimed by the petitioner, does not make him a workman because in any organisation exercise of authority at every level is subject to internal checks at superior levels. Therefore, having considered all the facts on record and having heard arguments from both the sides, I do not find any reason to review and cancel the order dated 17.11,2000 passed by the then Secretary (Labour), rejecting the case for being referred to the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts for adjudication. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.