INGERSOLL RAND INDIA LTD. Vs. DINESHBHAI KACHARABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made by the Employer to the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No. 358 of 2004 dated 29.11.2014. By the impugned award, the Labour Court has held that, (i) the respondent No.1 herein was 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and (ii) the allegations levelled against him by the Employer, in the discharge letter dated 18.12.2003, were not proved. Consequently, the Labour Court has directed that the respondent be reinstated in service, with continuity, with 40% back wages.

(2.) Mr.K.S.Nanavati, learned senior advocate for the petitioner Employer has submitted that, the respondent was not the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore no relief could have been granted by the Labour Court. It is submitted that this point was specifically agitated before the Labour Court as preliminary issue, the Labour Court had even framed this issue as the first issue, however, it has held that the respondent was workman within the meaning of the Act and ultimately the award is passed. It is submitted that, it was for the respondent to first prove that he was a workman and only after he discharged his obligation to that extent, the onus could have been shifted to the petitioner to contend and prove that he was not a workman. It is submitted that though this is the settled position of law, the Labour Court has held that, it was for the petitioner Employer to prove that the respondent was not the workman and thus, the Labour Court proceeded on the wrong premise and committed error. It is submitted that the petitioner had given an application Exh.15 that this issue be decided first, however, it was held by the Labour Court that this issue will be decided at the time of final adjudication. It is submitted that with a view to see that the proceedings are not delayed, the petitioner did not challenge it at the relevant time but that is the first issue to be gone into by this Court. It is submitted that, impugned award be quashed and set aside on this ground. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in support of this contention.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Yajnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted that :- the respondent was the workman, there was ample material on record in that regard, the Labour Court had also framed the issue in that regard and the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent was workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference is also made to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 before this Court dated 29.07.2015 along with annexures thereto. It is submitted that, no interference be made by this Court on that count. It is submitted that, this petition be dismissed.