R S RAUTELA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award of the Labour Court dated 29.4.2004, whereby the Labour Court has held that the petitioner-workman bheing 'Sales Promotion Employee' is not a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that though appointed by the respondent- management as a 'Field Supervisor' vide appointment letter No.337 dated 14.2.1995, the petitioner was, as a matter of fact, serving the management as a 'Sales Promotion Employee'. However, vide telegram dated 18.9.1995 followed by letter dated 20.9.1995, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent without disclosing any reason. Aggrieved by the arbitrary manner in which his services were terminated, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, vide its award dated 29.4.2004, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being a 'Sales Promotion Employee' was not performing any supervisory functions and thus was not a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying that the award dated 29.4.2004 is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

(3.) The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that the findings of the Labour Court in the impugned award dated 29.4.2004, being based on a wrong application of the prevalent judicial dictum as well as failure to appreciate the evidence on record, are patently erroneous. It is further submitted that the impugned award dated 29.4.2004 has, in effect, deprived the petitioner of the legal remedy and recourse available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.