KAMLA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. MEHRA BADARPUR SERVICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th November, 2007 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 21st September, 2005 whereby the Industrial adjudicator held that the appellant was not a workman defined under Section 2 (s)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that he was discharging duties of a manager, and, therefore he could not be entitled to any protection as envisaged for a workman.

(2.) TERMINATION of services of the appellant was subject matter of the dispute between the appellant-workman and the management. On the appellant- workman raising an industrial dispute, the appropriate government referred the same to the learned Labour Court on the following terms:

(3.) THE learned Industrial Adjudicator on receipt of the the aforesaid reference directed the parties to file their pleadings and also received evidence adduced by the parties. On appreciation of the aforesaid records and documents placed on record, the award dated 21st September, 2005 was passed, wherein it was recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator that the documents placed on record clearly indicate that the appellant was discharging duties of Manager. It was further held that a letter filed on record by the Management would indicate that the appellant himself admitted that he was working as Manager with the respondent, though in his cross examination the appellant had denied his signature on the said letter. The learned Industrial Adjudicator further held that the said letter was written by the appellant. It is indicated from several other letters which were placed on record and signed by the appellant that the appellant was working as Manager. Industrial Adjudicator relied upon the said admissions on the part of the appellant clearly showing that he was in over all charge of M/s. Mehra Badarpur Service Station to hold that the appellant was doing supervisory work and was drawing a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month and therefore he could not have been a workman. Having held thus, it was concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any relief as he was not entitled to the benefit under Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act.