DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The second respondent herein, was appointed as an Accounts Officer in the petitioner's College on 28/9/1996. When he had challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "ID Act"], the main objections raised by the petitioner- Management was that he was not a "workman" as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the ID Act. The Labour Court overruled the objections, by holding that the Management had failed to establish their case and accordingly, ordered for reinstatement, together with continuity of service and full back wages.

(3.) In the present Writ Petition, the only ground raised by the Management is that, the nature of duties of an Accounts Officer will not fall within the definition of "workman", as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the ID Act and therefore sought for interference of the impugned award dtd. 15/2/2013. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the nature of work performed by the second respondent, would squarely fall within the definition of a workman, which was established by them in the Labour Court through oral and documentary evidences and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned award dtd. 15/2/2013.