MGMT OF HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. LAKSHMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come forward with this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated July 10, 1997, passed in W. P. No. 3640 of 1986, in and by which, the learned Judge while setting aside the award of the second respondent dated September 9, 1985, made in I.D. No. 437 of 1984, and gave certain directions directing the appellant to appoint the first respondent within thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and also pay all back wages and other monetary benefits, etc.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The first respondent herein who was in the services of the appellant as gradation analyst and assistant production manager was alleged to have been transferred to Dhanbad by letters dated March 10, 1983, and September 8, 1983, that since the first respondent did not obey the order of transfer, by letter dated September 17, 1983, the appellant terminated the services of the first respondent, that aggrieved by the said order of the termination, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute and the same was to be referred to the second respondent by G.O. Ms. No. 1645, dated July 15, 1984. The second respondent took up the said dispute for adjudication in I.D. No. 437 of 1984. Before the second respondent, the appellant took a stand that the nature of the duties performed by the first respondent would show that he was employed in a supervisory capacity and, therefore, he would not come within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further contended that inasmuch as the first respondent persistently defied the order of transfer issued to him, the appellant was obliged to terminate the services by order dated September 17, 1983. The second respondent by its award dated September 9, 1985, held that the first respondent having been employed in managerial and administrative capacity and since he was drawing Rs. 500 per month cannot be considered as a "workman" falling under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in view of the said finding, the second respondent ultimately dismissed the dispute and did not grant any relief to the first respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the award of the first respondent in the said dispute, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 3640 of 1986, inter alia, contending that the duties performed by him were purely of technical and clerical in nature, that the conclusion of the second respondent to the effect that he was not a "workman" falling under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act was totally unjustified, that the termination of his service by the appellant by its order dated September 17, 1983, was passed in total violation of all principles of natural justice, that the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was also not followed and, therefore, for all the above said reasons, the award of the second respondent was liable to be set aside and the appellant should be directed to reinstate the first respondent with all back wages and with continuity of service, etc.