MAYURBHAI N DAVE Vs. MANGALAM CINEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought to challenge the award of Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 345 of 1984 whereby his demand under reference was rejected after recording findings of fact to the effect that the petitioner had not sought reinstatement by making a demand therefor and that he was not falling within the definition of "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was seen from the material placed on record that, in his statement of claim, demand notice as well as the deposition, the petitioner had asserted that he was working as Manager under the respondent. As against that, it was sought to be argued by learned counsel Mr. D. C. Rawal that the essential duties of Manager were not proved to have been discharged by the petitioner and despite his own assertion to the contrary, he ought to have been held to be a "workman" within the definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in S. K. Maini v. M/s. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [ (1994) 3 SCC 510], which has no application in the facts of the present case in view of the assertions made by the petitioner himself before the Labour Court.

(2.) SINCE the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award by the Labour Court are not found to be in any way perverse or illegal, any interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution could not be justified. Therefore, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.