K M ULAHANNAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant petitioner was the Secretary of Kattappana Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. 3738. On account of misconduct, after a proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D. 17/1986. Labour Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, because he was not a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Award passed by the Labour Court was challenged before this court in O.P. 6030/1990. Learned Single Judge concurred with the view taken by the Labour Court and held that petitioner was not a workman coming within the purview of the Act. Consequently, the Original Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant, who was the Secretary of Kattapana Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. 3738, is a 'workman' as defined in the Act.

(3.) While defining 'workman' in clause (s) of S.2 of the Act, one who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is specifically excluded from its purview. So, if the petitioner was employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, he cannot fall in the category of 'workman'. What are the tests to be followed to find out the nature of an employment Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether an employee is engaged in a managerial capacity or not, as per S.4(1)(a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, in Prem Sagar v. S. V. Oil Company, AIR 1965 SC 111 , stated: