BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO LIMITED Vs. YADESHWAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Award dated 6.12.2005 passed by Labour Court-IV, Karkardooma, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that respondent/ workman was appointed as a Printer with the petitioner on 26.12.1976 at Calcutta. He was confirmed as Printer on 1.4.1977. Thereafter, he was promoted and transferred to Ahmedabad as a Night Supervisor with effect from 21.7.1978. He was transferred from Ahmedabad to Delhi office of the petitioner on 14.1.1980 as a Night Supervisor. Respondent was charged with misconduct. The allegations of the petitioner against the respondent were that on 16.7.1986 respondent insulted Mr. M.M. Srivastava, Administrative Manager in presence of other staff. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 29.7.1986 about misconduct and indiscipline. After receipt of the charge sheet respondent, on 2.8.1986, entered into the room of Mr. Srivastava and abused and threatened him and was about to physically assault him but was restrained from doing so by some of the staff members . The reply to the charge sheet dated 29.7.1986 submitted by the respondent was considered unsatisfactory and the service of the respondent was terminated on 28.8.1986. He was given one month's salary in lieu of notice. Respondent challenged the termination of his services, as a result following dispute was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Labour Court:-

(3.) The petitioner in response to the claim of the respondent took the stand that respondent was not a workman. He was working in Supervisory capacity. There were a number of watchmen working under him and he used to supervise their work. Whenever any overtime work was to be taken from the watchmen, respondent used to instruct the watchmen about overtime work and he had full authority to pass their overtime slips. He used to exercise this authority very often. He used to recommend or reject leave of the watchmen working under him. Respondent had the power to allot duties to watchmen. He was responsible for the safety of the property of the company during all the three shifts. He represented the management during the departmental enquiries. His pay was fixed in the administrative and supervisory cadre. He had also officiated as Press Superintendent for some time. Respondent was not allotted any clerical or manual duty nor he performed any clerical or manual work. He was drawing a total salary of Rs. 1977/-.