M PITCHAI Vs. CHOLAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Short point that arises for consideration in these write petitions for certiorari is what exactly is the construction to be placed on Standing Orders of Cholan Roads Corporation Limited concerning the definition of "workers". Under Clause-2, sub-clause (a) 'worker' is defined as, any person employed by the management either directly or through any agency in connection with the company's business. In these two writs petitions the petitioners are foremen who are sought to be retired at the age of 55 which according to the Corporation would be the age of superannuation since the definition of worker contained in the certified standing orders would not embrace foremen. In the Counter Affidavit of the Corporation the duties concerning foremen in paragraph - 2 it is stated in W. P. No. 3780 of 1979 as follows :

(2.) MR. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for petitioners would urge that it is open to the parties to enlarge the definition in S. 2 (1) so as to take in persons who are exercising supervisory function and, therefore, when the intention of the parties was to adopt an enlarged definition than the Statutory definition contained in S. 2 (i) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders. It is open to the respondent Corporation to request the Court to construe it in any other way. I may also in this connection note that Mr. Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioners, so far as no reply has been filed to the averment in the counter-affidavit in paragraph-2 extracted above would say that he will proceed on the basis that what is stated in the counter affidavit could not be denied. As against this Mr. Sanjay Mohan learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would state that this is a case in which the Standing Orders are drafted with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act behind the purpose and unless there are express words so as to include persons exercising supervisory function or in other words unless the parties have in clear terms adopted a wider definition than what is contained in Section 2 (i) there is no reason to deviate or depart from the statutory definition contained in S. 2 (i) Such being the position person like the petitioners who are foremen exercising supervisory functions will not fall within the definition of "worker" contained in Certified Standing Orders.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the above argument I am of the view that the stand of the respondent is unassailable. The Statutory definition of "workman" contained in S. 2 (i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, is an under : "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any Industrial Establishment to do any skilled or unskilled manual supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person :