RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajendra Singh, the petitioner, was an employee of Scooters India Limited. He was appointed as Assistant Supervisor on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month which was inclusive of all allowances. The terms and conditions, under which he was appointed were stated in the letter of appointment dated 7th Mar. 1975, a copy of which is Annexure C-l to the counter-affidavit. He was placed on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duties. That letter also enumerated the duties of his post. Para 15 of that letter is relevant for our enquiry which is extracted herein below :

(2.) The petition has been opposed by the employer Scooters India Ltd. And a counter- affidavit has been filed on its behalf by Sri C. D. Sugdan, Assistant Personnel Officer in Scooters India Ltd. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter-affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length.

(3.) For the petitioner it was submitted that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the U. P. I. D. Act and it, therefore, further erred in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction and in not deciding the dispute referred to it by the State Government. The argument was that even though the petitioner was being paid salary of more than Rs. 500/- per month, he was a workman as he was not doing any supervisory work as contemplated by the definition of "workman". The submission was that the petitioner has deposed before the Labour Court in clear terms that he was setting up the job himself on the machine and thereafter the workmen would operate the machines which were working automatically. He had to work on the machine himself and keep a record of the production being done in line No. 4 but he had no controlling power over the workmen nor had he any disciplinary authority over those workmen. Hence he was not working in any supervisory capacity. The learned counsel for the Scooters India Ltd., on the other hand, laid emphasis on the duties mentioned in the appointment letter and also on the fact that the petitioner from the documentary evidence could not show that he had actually worked upon any machine and had actually produced any thing whereas other workmen, who were working under him, were producing some articles which the petitioner himself was noting down in the register. It was also said that the petitioner was making his own recommendation on leave applications of the workmen working under him and was in fact working throughout as supervisor. Hence he was not a workman. We were taken through the evidence adduced before the Labour Court which has been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and have given our careful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case.