TOSHNIWAL BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an order of the Addl. Labour Court, Delhi, holding in a proceeding on a reference under Sections 10(l)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, repelling the contention of the petitioner to the contrary, that respondent No. 3, the validity of the termination of whose services by the petitioner, formed subject-matter of the reference, was a "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act.

(2.) D. P. Maheshwari, respondent No. 3, was appointed by the petitioner, a Joint Stock Company carrying on business in Delhi and other places, as an Accounts Officer in August, 1964, vide Annexure P-4, at a salary of Rs. 600.00 in the grade of Rs. 600-50-800 pursuant to his application of March 26, 1964, Annexure P-3, in which the respondent described himself as an M. Com., LLB., with special proficiency in Company Accounts & Audit, Income-Tax Law, Statistics, Organisation, Business Management etc. The respondent also claimed that he was at that time working as Circle Officer in the U.P. State Co-operative Department and would be able to "supervise the Accounts General Administration, Planning and Liaison Departments". It was further claimed that the respondent had been running various social welfare and youth organisations in one capacity or the other. In April, 1965, the respondent was designated as Officer on Special Duty. In 1966 he was transferred on deputation as Secretary to the Industrial Service Bureau, a service or consultancy organisation with which the Joint Managing Director of the petitioner was apparently interested. In 1968 he was appointed as Stores Purchase Officer as also to look after the legal department and was then drawing a salary of Rs. 800.00 . In August, 1969, he was transferred to Madras as Administrative Officer, allegedly on account of differences with the said Joint Managing Director in relation to certain extra employment activities of the petitioner or his trade union involvement and on his failure to report there, his services were terminated with effect from July 28, 1969. The validity of the termination of the services of the respondent is the subject-matter of the reference made by the appropriate Government under Sections 10(l)(c) and 12(5) of ths Act to the Additional Labour Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the Additional Labour Court framed three issues. Issue No. 1 is based on the plea of the management that the respondent was not a "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. This is how the issue runs :

(3.) Before the Additional Labour Court, the respondent raised the plea that even though he was a highly qualified and experienced person and was not only given high-sounding designations from time to time and was entrusted with fairly responsible work, both in the management of the affairs of the business of the petitioner as well as in certain extra-business activities of the Joint Managing Director, Mr. Toshniwal, he was nevertheless a "workman" within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(s) of the Act inasmuch as he has throughout been carrying on the work of a clerical nature. On the other hand, it was claimed on behalf of the management that the duties of the respondent were primarily of a supervisory or administrative nature and since at the relevant time the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 800.00 he could not be treated as a workman. At the trial of the issue parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions.