ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. A VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the Additional Labour Court, Madras rendered in I. D. No. 256 of 1975. The dispute in the award relates to the non-employment of the first respondent, an Engineering Graduate, who was working as a development officer of the petitioner-company due to discharge simpliciter as he was un-co-operative in his work, and irregular in his attendance. As a result of this, he lost the confidence of the management. Without giving an opportunity to the first respondent to defend, these allegations of un-co-operative nature and irregularity in attendance, which are all false, and in the guise of discharge he was punished by way of dismissal without any enquiry as required under law. The writ petitioner-management contended that the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He belonged to the administrative or managerial cadre, though a technical person. On these pleadings three issues were posed for determination by the Labour Court, which are as follows :

(2.) ON the first issue he came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein was doing only technical work, i. e. , he was functioning in his technical capacity alone and so he is workman under S. 2 (s) of the Act. On issue No. 2 it was concluded that it was not a bona fide discharge. The management wanted to get rid of the workman from its services for reasons best known to it and got rid of him by discharging him. It is a colourable exercise of the power of the respondent as it is dismissal guised in discharge. As a result, an award was passed directing reinstatement of the first respondent with backwages till 26-8-1977 from which date he is employed elsewhere and which he has agreed to give up continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Thus, the writ petition.

(3.) MR. S. Govindaswaminathan, appearing for the management, states that the first respondent was a graduate apprentice. On 1-12-1962 he was appointed as a Senior Foreman (Machine Shop) till 30-11-1971 and on that date he was appointed as a Development Officer, carrying a salary of Rs. 1,050 as basic and Rs. 210 as dearness allowance. By a reading of the award, it will be seen that the Labour Court had completely misdirected itself. The first respondent signed all the correspondence not in his administrative or managerial capacity, but only in his technical capacity. That is clearly against the tenor of the various documents.