MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD CHENNAI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to quash the order in I.A.No.508 of 1997 in I.D.No.245 of 1988 dated 26.11.1997 on the file of the first respondent/Labour Court and to direct the first respondent/Labour Court to frame the issue as to "whether the second respondent would fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947" along with other issues to be tried.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (a) THE second respondent herein joined in the service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1970 and he was lastly employed as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) O&M East, Sivagiri, Periar Electricity System and it was a gazatted post. While the second respondent was employed as Assistant Engineer, a disciplinary action was initiated against him for certain acts of misconduct and based on the findings in the enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 4.4.1985. THE aggrieved second respondent filed appeal before the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the same was dismissed on 20.10.1986. (b) THEreafter the second respondent raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred in G.O.Ms.No.1216 dated 8.6.1988 for adjudication to find out as to whether the non-employment of the second respondent was justified. THE second respondent filed Claim Statement in December, 1988, and the petitioner/Management filed counter statement in March, 1989. In the counter statement the petitioner/Management raised the contention that the second respondent having been employed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical), a gazatted post, he will not come within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, apart from raising the defence on merits. (c) While the dispute was pending, petitioner/Management filed I.A.No.508 of 1997 on 7.7.1997 and raised the preliminary issue as to "Whether the second respondent is a "workman" within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947" and it was contended that in the event of the Labour Court holding that the second respondent is not a "Workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, none of the other issues need be considered on merits and thereby valuable time of the Court can be saved. (d)THE second respondent filed a counter affidavit in the interlocutory application and contended that the petitioner/Management having appeared before the Conciliation machinery, it should be taken that the petitioner/Management had accepted the second respondent's status as "Workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore there is no necessity to try the said issue as a preliminary issue. It is also specifically stated that the petitioner/Management having participated in the Conciliation proceeding, it is estopped from raising the preliminary issue. (e)THE Labour Court considered the said contentions and on 26.11.1997 ordered that the request of the petitioner/Management to give a finding on the preliminary issue is not justified since the petitioner participated in the Conciliation proceeding and the disciplinary proceeding having been initiated under the Standing Orders, petitioner/Management accepted the second respondent's status as "Workman" and hence there is no necessity to decide the preliminary issue. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) (i)In the decision reported in Newspapers Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and others Newspapers Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and others Newspapers Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court held thus at p.80 of LLJ: