MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition questions the validity of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Industrial Dispute No, 3 of 1955, After hearing counsel for the petitioner (Management) we are satisfied that the only question that really arises for consideration is whether seven of the thirteen employees ordered to be reinstated by the Tribunal are workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. The seven employees concerned are Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the employees specified in issue No. 3, namely, C.T. Thomas, Conductor; A.G. Cherian, Conductor; Kalis Pereira, Maistry; C.Unnunny, Maistry; P.M. Behanan, Maistry; V.E. Varghese, Maistry and K. Bhaskara Pillai, Maistry.

(2.) The definition of the term workman as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows:

(3.) The question as to whether an employee comes within the definition of the term workman or not as defined in the Act is a jurisdictional issue which though within the competence of the Tribunal to decide is still open to examination in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. (See Burma - Shell Co. V.L.A. Tribunal. AIR 1957 Mad. 60 ). The designation given to the employee is of course not conclusive. The fact that a person employed in a supervisory capacity does some manual or clerical work as ancillary or incidental to such an employment will also not bring him within the ambit of the definition. The main features, the pith and substance, of his employment must be manual or clerical before the definition is attracted.