N J JOSEPH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of Ext. P1 award passed by the first respondent holding that the termination of the service of the petitioner is cot illegal.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as travelling salesman in the Consumer Products Division of. the second respondent company initially on probation on 16-11-1972 and was confirmed on 16-5-1973. The contract of appointment has been renewed from year to year. By notice dated 14-5-1980 his service was terminated with effect from 16-5-1980. The respondent in holding that there is no illegal termination has found that the petitioner is not a workman as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this finding of the respondent is perverse, patently wrong and vitiated by errors apparent and that there had been no proper evaluation of the evidence or consideration of the relevant materials in arriving at the conclusion.

(3.) In a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the question whether an employee is a workman or not can be interfered with only if it is shown to be vitiated by an error manifest and obvious. In D. P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 63 FJR 333 the Supreme Court considered the scope of the definition of 'workman' in S.2(s) of the I. D. Act and observed.