BAGESHWAR MAURYA Vs. MANAGEMENT NAVEEN PROJECTS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is absent despite service. Affidavit of service has already been placed on record. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant was a workman of the respondent-company. He was appointed by the respondent as a Foreman/Clerk vide appointment letter dated August 19, 1997. The respondent company's office is situated at New Delhi. The appellant was posted by the respondent-company at its project site at Dharnasar in State of Rajasthan from where he was transferred to the project site at Karamsana, Rajasthan. The appointment as well as transfer orders were issued from Delhi Office. Services of the appellant were terminated vide letter dated December 30, 1999 issued by the respondent company's office at Delhi. Contending that the said order of termination was unauthorized, arbitrary and illegal, as no domestic enquiry was held prior thereto, the appellant raised an industrial dispute.

(2.) The Government of NCT of Delhi in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court XVIII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the respondent-company inter alia contended that the appellant was not covered within the definition of workman as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was performing the duties of administrative/supervisory in nature and drawing wages of more than Rs. 1600/- per month. The reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi was also challenged on the ground that the Government of NCT of Delhi was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workman was posted in Rajasthan when his services were terminated.