S.SREENIVASAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the dismissal award passed by the Labour Court dated 7 -1 -1998 in I.D. No. 19 of 1996. The petitioner before the Labour Court who lost his case has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Accounts Officer in the second respondent establishment and after deducting the statutory deduction he received a salary Rs. 2,853/ - per month. A charge -memo was issued by the respondent management to the petitioner on 26 -11 -1994 to which the petitioner replied on 30 -11 - 1994, denying the charges. However, the petitioner was terminated from service on 18.11.1994. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and requested to reinstate him in service. The Labour Officer however gave his failure conciliation report add the matter was referred under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was taken on file of the first respondent in I.D. No. 19 of 1996. The second respondent has filed a counter statement before the Labour Court stating that the petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and ultimately the Labour Court dismissed the petition on 7.1.1998 on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) MR . N. Thiagarajan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Labour Court had presumed as if the petitioner was doing supervisory work merely on the basis of his designation as Accounts Officer. It was specifically pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never doing supervisory job and the Labour Court ought to have considered the evidence in proper perspective. He would also submit that it was the duty of the second respondent management to prove before the Labour Court that the petitioner was in fact doing supervisory work and in the absence of such evidence, it should be presumed as per the pleading of the petitioner, that the petitioner was a workman.