K. PREMARAJ Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MIMS HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals arise from the judgment in W.P. (C). No. 20287/2012. The appellant in W.A. No. 1034/2013 is the writ petitioner. He had filed the writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in I.D. No. 26/2007. It was held in the award passed by the Labour Court that the writ petitioner is not a "workman", as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the "I.D. Act").

(2.) WE have also called for the records from the Labour Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant -writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent -Management in the matter.

(3.) THE workman was appointed as a Maintenance Supervisor. He was dismissed from service by the management after conducting domestic enquiry. An industrial dispute was raised by him and the matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court. In the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28/10/2009, it was held that the termination of the workman by the management is justifiable. Challenging the award of the Labour Court, the workman and the management filed separate writ petitions before this Court. The writ petition filed by the workman is W.P. (C). No. 28907/2009 and the writ petition filed by the management is W.P. (C). No. 28808/2011. The grievance of the management in the above writ petition was that the workman being Maintenance Supervisor and employed in a supervisory capacity, he is excluded from the definition of "workman", and, therefore, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction. The workman's grievance was that he was not accorded sufficient opportunity for adducing evidence before the Labour Court. This Court, as per common judgment dated 01/02/2012, set aside the award dated 28/10/2009 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration holding that the Labour Court did not consider the question regarding lack of jurisdiction and also did not give sufficient opportunity to the workman for adducing evidence. Thereafter, after remand, the matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, as per the order dated 12/06/2012 passed an award holding that it lacks jurisdiction as the workman does not satisfy definition accorded to the "workman" under the ID Act. Challenging the award, workman approached this Court in the impugned judgment from which these writ appeals arise. The learned single Judge took the view that merely because the appointment order would indicate that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor, it will not take away the status of the writ petitioner as "workman". The learned single Judge is of the view that the functional aspect of such designation has to be looked into, to hold whether he is a workman or not. Therefore, for the purpose of considering the question with reference to the functional aspect of the nature and duties performed by the workman, the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court.